Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order. for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 20 April.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 April.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 April at 7 o'clock.

HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Community Volunteers

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will explain the purposes and duties of the proposed community volunteers schemes.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The Government have not formulated proposals for community volunteer schemes in the field of crime prevention. Members of the public are already contributing directly to crime prevention by joining neighbourhood watch and crime prevention panels. We encourage those wishing to give more active support to the police to join the special constabulary.

Mr. Morgan: In the light of the Home Secretary's recent speeches on the matter, will the Minister tell the House the relevance of the proposals for unpaid volunteers and special constables to solve the special problems which exist, such as the fear that women feel when travelling on the Underground at night and the problem of lager louts massing outside pubs and night clubs? Is it not really a matter of training workers without uniforms to do the jobs of special constables without wages?

Mr. Patten: That is quite a good line, but it is totally facetious and fatuous. We need more special constables to join up as active citzens in uniform, to help to relieve the police—as they can do—for their mainstream duties, by carrying out many ancillary duties for them. That will allow better policing. That is why we propose to introduce special constables on the Underground soon. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Mr. Adley: In view of my hon. Friend's remarks, does he agree that the police are hugely overburdened with road traffic work and that it is about time that we considered establishing a highway patrol so that the police can concentrate on criminal matters?

Mr. Patten: It is the view of both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself that issues of traffic patrolling are best left to the chief constables in each area, who are operationally in charge of those difficult responsibilities.

Mr. Corbett: Is it not deceiving the still rising number of victims of violence in the west midlands and everywhere else to pretend that community volunteers can stem the alarming increase in crimes of violence? Is it not merely an attempt to powder over the problem rather than put enough feet on the beat to prevent even more people becoming victims of violence?

Mr. Patten: More well-turned lines, but they are very wide of the target. The hon. Gentleman avoids the fact, which I made clear in my main answer, that we have formulated no proposals for community volunteers. The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. Rather, we encourage more active citizens to join up as special


constables to help the police and the attack on violent crime by relieving the police of the burdens of some of their ancillary duties.

Stocken and Ashwell Prisons

Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the arrangements for ensuring that men sent to Her Majesty's prisons Stocken and Ashwell are suitable for category C regimes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Only prisoners in security category C are sent to Her Majesty's prisons Stocken and Ashwell. The prison service takes great care to ensure that all prisoners sent to those prisons are suitable for the conditions there.

Mr. Latham: Does my hon. Friend recall from our correspondence the very real concern of the Prison Officers Association that men are being sent to those prisons who are really suitable for category B? In view of the serious incident which occurred at Ashwell last August, will my hon. Friend ensure that the prison department listens closely to the views of the Prison Officers Association, which represents the people who are at the sharp end every day?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend deserves the congratulations of his constituents for the persistence with which he has acted to ensure that prisoners sent to the two prisons he mentioned are suitable for the conditions there. My hon. Friend will know that he and I are to meet shortly to discuss that particular issue and I hope that what I say then will reassure him.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister ensure that places are left available at category C prisons Stocken and Ashwell, ready for Monday's performance at the Royal Courts of Justice when the law-breaking Lords—led by Lord Donaldson, previous head of the national industrial relations court—decide to go on strike? Presumably the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General will band together to take appropriate action against the lawbreakers, but will the culprits be sent to category C prisons or to somewhere even harsher?

Mr. Hogg: It is for the prison service to determine whether that security categorisation is right, but persons are sent to category C prisons only if they are not a threat to the public.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend recently advised me in a written reply that of the 32,000 prisoners serving sentences of one year or more, 10 per cent.—3,000—of them are foreign nationals. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they were sent back to their own countries to serve those sentences it would make a great deal of difference to both Ashwell and Stocken and lessen the current problems in our gaols?

Mr. Hogg: That proposal goes somewhat wide of the question, though it is an interesting idea. The trouble is that if some of those offenders were sent back to their countries of origin they might not have to serve a period in custody.

Mr. Holt: So what?

Mr. Hogg: They would then not be punished for what they had done.

Mr. Sheerman: Is not this problem of categorisation in a local prison symptomatic of the problems in local prisons throughout the country? Such is the pressure on local prisons that categorisation and allocation is haphazard. Prison officers have certainly brought this problem to the attention of the Opposition. Many prisoners are allocated to entirely the wrong prisons, which bodes ill for the forthcoming summer months.

Mr. Hogg: As I have had cause to say before, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is not master of his material. Stocken and Ashwell are not local prisons, nor are they overcrowded or understaffed. In many respects, they are admirable prisons. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman should do a little homework before he next intervenes in questions about the prison service.

Charities

Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to reform the law on charities.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I announced in January last year that we intended to bring forward legislation to implement the proposals made by Sir Philip Woodfield in his efficiency scrutiny of the supervision of charities. I hope shortly to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals.

Mr. MacKay: While I welcome the White Paper and hope that it will shortly be published—followed, one hopes, by legislation in the next Session of Parliament—will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary confirm that the Charity Commissioners can deregister charities found to be fraudulent and remove trustees? Is it not a pity that that does not happen more often?

Mr. Hurd: The commissioners have powers of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend and are ably led and increasingly well organised. The trouble with the existing law is that it imposes on them a number of secondary duties which make it difficult for them to carry out effectively all the important tasks that they would wish.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Home Secretary aware that in the past 12 months many members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have written to me complaining about the running of that organisation—for which we all have great respect? Following the expulsion of the watchdog group of RSPCA members, I convened a meeting and asked those members if they would be prepared to accept me as arbiter between the warring factions. Is the Home Secretary aware that they refused, and that many RSPCA members are making grave allegations against the organisation, about which something should be done? Will he ensure that any reform provides for an inquiry of some sort?

Mr. Hurd: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's reputation for calm and impartiality did not serve him on that occasion. It is surely for the RSPCA to sort the matter out. If the question of its charitable status should arise, it will be a matter between the RSPCA and the Charity Commission; certainly it is not my responsibility.

Mr. Favell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many bank accounts around the country contain money collected for worthwhile projects such as children's playgrounds, sports fields and conservation that have come to nothing? Often the promoters have left or died. Has my right hon. Friend any plans to release that money—which may run into millions of pounds—for other suitable, worthwhile charity projects?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Charity Commission is already able to take action if it knows of money having been abandoned in that way. For example. it can appoint new trustees. We propose, however, to strengthen its powers as a result of the Woodfield report. I will write to my hon. Friend with details.

Cocaine

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any new initiatives are planned to prevent the importation of cocaine from Colombia and other Latin American nations; what assessment he has made of the extent to which organised crime is involved in this traffic; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Measures that the Government have taken against the production and importation of cocaine and other drugs include the provision of £1·8 million of drug-related assistance to Latin American countries over the past three years and the setting up of specialist Customs teams to target cocaine trafficking. Organised criminal gangs are often involved with this traffic.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will be discussing the threat to Europe from cocaine at the ministerial meeting of the Pompidou Group in London next month.

Mr. Tredinnick: When, late last year, I attended an international conference in Washington which covered drug problems, Colombian representatives told me that they did not think that enough was being done in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to suppress demand. They stressed their own strenuous efforts to curtail supply, which had resulted in the deaths of their Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, more than 50 judges and more than 1,700 police and law enforcement officers in recent years. Does my hon. Friend recognise the efforts made by the Colombians?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, I do. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had a meeting yesterday with the Colombian Foreign Minister. It was a very profitable and helpful exchange. My hon. Friend is right to raise the subject of cocaine. In 1988 the Customs seized larger quantities of cocaine than of heroin. We have a range of policies designed to deal with the problems of drug misuse and importation, which of course address the cocaine problem, but in view of the changing figures we are reassessing those policies to establish whether they need adjustment.

Mr. Skinner: When those officers are engaged in stopping the importation of cocaine from Colombia, will the Minister ask them to stop the importation of coal from Colombia at the same time?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is a drug, is it?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is. You have helped me, Mr. Speaker. The importation of Colombian coal mined by nine-year-old children is not just a drug but a drain on Britain's balance of payments.

Mr. Hogg: I think that the Leader of the Opposition will become increasingly alarmed at the fact that the sole Opposition spokesman on these important matters appears to be the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the importance of intelligence-gathering in dealing with this odious trade? Are we doing enough to stamp it out by working with the authorities not just in Colombia but in Bolivia and Peru where the drug is produced?

Mr. Hogg: That is an extremely important point. The exchange of intelligence and information goes to the root of our ability, and that of European countries generally, to deal with the problem of cocaine importation. We are establishing ever better relations with the Latin American countries and are extending our network of drug liaison officers.

DNA Testing

Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make an announcement concerning a Government DNA testing scheme to assist those seeking to settle in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): We are considering introducing a centrally run DNA scheme, the cost of which will not fall on the general taxpayer. The use of such a scheme would not, of course, be compulsory for settlement applicants. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Madden: Why are the Government dragging their feet about the introduction of a DNA testing scheme? Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread suspicion that the Government are reluctant to introduce the scheme because DNA testing offers reliable evidence to prove the genuineness of applications from families who wish to be reunited in this country and that that is why the Government are wasting so much time? Over the past 12 months, the Minister has been saying that he hopes to make an announcement "shortly" and "as soon as possible", and last weekend, he said that it would be made within weeks. It is high time that the announcement was made and that families were able to take advantage of the scheme to be reunited in this country.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is taking his usual blinkered and biased view about anything to do with immigration. In the past four months alone, the immigration and nationality department has accepted 750 DNA test reports showing whether the relationship is as claimed, but of the reports submitted to us some 12 per cent. have shown that the parents and children are not related as claimed. One in eight couples thus find that one of them is not the parent of the child although both had thought that they were. That produces many problems


—in relation to the admission of illegitimate children, for example—which must properly be considered before we take a final decision on the matter.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has shown his faith in the infallibility of DNA—a faith that I share. Given that faith, can my hon. Friend say when he intends to introduce DNA fingerprinting not only for immigration cases but for everyone convicted of crime?

Mr. Renton: As my hon. Friend knows, DNA fingerprinting has already been used successfully in homicide cases. The figures that I quoted to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) were intended to show that we are already accepting the test in immigration cases. We are now bending our minds as to how to introduce a centrally run scheme which will be fair to all applicants and will avoid erecting financial barriers which could be a deterrent to genuine applicants, without causing the general taxpayer to pay. That is a difficult problem, but we are setting about solving it.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise the problem of people paying for DNA testing themselves whereby it has been shown that decisions to refuse entry taken by the Government in the past were clearly wrong? Should not those people be allowed immediate, priority admission to this country—even if they are now 18 if they should have been admitted in the original instance?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman must consider the fact that when those children were under 18 they applied as dependants. That is the basis in our immigration rules on which children under 18 are normally allowed into this country. The hon. Gentleman must consider whether it is right that those who may already be married, heads of families, with many children living abroad should be introduced with their families into the United Kingdom simply because a DNA test shows that the father is related as claimed. That is the issue to which we must give close attention.

Mr. Watts: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer deserved a rather more fulsome welcome than it received from the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden)? My hon. Friend is right to believe that such a scheme should be voluntary. If DNA testing became widely available on a voluntary basis at the earliest possible date to establish conclusively the blood relationships which need to be proved in the case of dependants seeking settlement, it would be welcomed by the ethnic minority communities in this country.

Mr. Renton: I accept fully what my hon. Friend has said. We accept DNA testing now when the results have been voluntarily produced, but the cost of producing them is a serious financial burden. That is why we are trying, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to arrive at a scheme that would avoid the burden falling on the ordinary taxpayer but would not financially harm individual families too greatly. We hope to do that and to announce the results as soon as possible.

Mr. Darling: As DNA testing has shown that many people were wrongly refused entry to this country, does the Minister accept that DNA testing could eliminate queues and paperwork and save vast amounts of money and that to impose high charges will simply erect a financial barrier

in place of a bureaucratic barrier? The Minister says that the test may not be compulsory, but does he not accept that it may be necessary because of the haphazard and inefficient way in which entry clearance officers work? Will he not reconsider allowing entry to those dependants who are now over the age of 18? A manifest injustice has been done to them. The Minister should not seek to stand in the way of family unity—a cause that I should have expected the Conservative party to espouse.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's attack on members of the immigration service was totally unjust, although I would not expect him, from his hideout in Edinburgh, to have great experience of immigration matters. DNA testing will not, as the hon. Gentleman put it, eliminate queues if the Labour party sticks to the policy to which it was committed in 1987 of repealing the immigration and nationality Acts. All the fair but firm immigration controls that we have introduced would disappear overnight.

Juvenile Offenders

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the subject of making it obligatory for parents to attend court alongside alleged juvenile offenders.

Mr. John Patten: In addition to the recent questions from my hon. Friend, in the past 12 months the Home Office has received about 40 letters stressing the need to involve parents in the consequences of their children's misbehaviour. Some referred to parents' attendance at court with their children.

Mr. Gill: On the very day when it is reported that three children, aged six, seven and nine, carried out a depraved sex attack on an elderly, disabled and defenceless woman, does my hon. Friend not agree that it is high time that society made it clear that it will hold parents entirely responsible for the actions of their children?

Mr. Patten: On the second point, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that we need to make considerable and rapid strides forward by making parents more responsible for their children's criminal acts. On the first point, I cannot and should not comment on press reports, but I agree entirely with Superintendent Martin Burton—reported in The Daily Telegraph, so it must be true—who says:
Parents should be responsible for bringing up their children, teaching them to tell the truth, to respect other people's property and to look after those less fortunate. They should be told it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal and bully.

Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell that to other Ministers. In view of his comments today, and more particularly his recent utterances on children and parents in court, does he agree that instead of seeking to punish parents for the acts of their children, whom the parents are sometimes not in a position to control, it might be better to investigate the root cause of juvenile crime and make efforts to provide help for those families which, at an early stage, have problems with their children?

Mr. Patten: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's serious interest in the issue. He is right that parents who, for a variety of reasons, cannot control their children, or who have sought help because of their children's unruly


behaviour, should not be punished by the law. However, it is right that we should follow the signposts provided by the Labour Government's Children and Young Persons Act 1969, which provides that parents can be bound over on a recognisance of £500 to ensure the proper conduct of their children. I look forward to new and imaginative thoughts on the issue in the forthcoming Labour party policy review, though heaven knows what they will be.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As parents are already required to go to court in truancy cases, and as most children who are at risk indulge in criminal activities at the age of 14 or 15, will my hon. Friend reconsider the time limit? It can take up to two years to get the parent and the child to court. Will he also reconsider the penalties which can be imposed? Will he ensure that such cases are dealt with as quickly as possible as there is no point in taking children to court once they have left school?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The best form of justice is the swiftest form of justice, particularly when dealing with children. Such delays are undesirable and I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters. In addition, I agree that the attendance of parents in court when their children are being tried is very desirable indeed, and I am sure that all of my hon. Friends would wish to see that happen on every such occasion.

Mr. Randall: How would the Minister's much publicised new proposal dealing with the failure to prevent child crime, to which he indirectly referred just now, distinguish between parents who turn a blind eye and those who genuinely cannot cope with the behaviour of their children? Does the Minister realise that his proposal is unworkable and, at best, would increase family breakdown and create even more homelessness? Is he aware that there are already enough powers to make parents accountable for the behaviour of their children? Why, therefore, does he not throw his proposals in the dustbin, where they belong?

Mr. Patten: I answer no to the hon. Gentleman's second and third questions. As to his first question, if he had bothered to read my words he would have seen that in the four or five-page document in which these ideas are presented the methods are very carefully set out. Should we proceed with such an offence, those parents who are not able to deal with their offending children can be separated from the deliberately delinquent parents and the deliberately delinquent children, about whom the Labour party has no ideas at all. If the hon. Gentleman's question is good evidence of the new thinking emerging from the Labour party's policy review, heaven help the Labour party.

Neighbourhood Watch

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many neighbourhood watch schemes are now established in England and Wales.

Mr. John Patten: At the end of March 1989 there were 66,423 neighbourhood watch schemes in England and Wales, covering approximately 3¾ million households. This is a new record—28 per cent. more neighbourhood watches than a year ago.

Mr. Carrington: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the neighbourhood watch schemes have led to a reduction in the number of burglaries, particularly in London, and that their proven success in reducing crime is the best way of increasing the number of schemes and of encouraging residents to join and to participate?

Mr. Patten: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that one of the best ways of accelerating the present happy decline in domestic burglary is to have more neighbourhood watches. Perhaps more district councils could follow the recent example of Brentwood district council, which has appointed its first neighbourhood watch co-ordinator. That could do a lot of good.

Mr. Sheerman: Does the Minister accept that, whale Opposition Members support neighbourhood watch schemes, they believe that those schemes must be linked into a positive partnership between the police and local authorities, and that if we are to have proper crime prevention we need to give democratically elected authorities a lead role in crime prevention? Will the Minister and the Home Secretary give those authorities the resources and the powers to do that job constructively?

Mr. Patten: Many Labour-controlled local authorities—in Hull, for example—are very happy to co-operate with the Home Office in the efforts to reduce crime through crime prevention measures. I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would bother to go to a county like Cleveland and advise the Labour-controlled local authority o co-operate with the neighbourhood watch movement instead of attacking it.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my hon. Friend aware that the success of a neighbourhood watch scheme stems directly from the relationship of the police constable on the beat with the people themselves? In my constituency—where, two years ago, there were 60 break-ins a year in one particular area—since there has been a neighbourhood watch scheme, with a first-class police officer in charge, and co-operation from the local people, we have had no break-ins?

Mr. Patten: I hope that if my right hon. Friend extends an invitation to me he will let me meet the police constable and the people involved in the neighbourhood watch scheme. It is not just neighbourhood watch schemes in areas like Castle Point—my right hon. Friend's constituency—that produce these remarkable results; similar results are being produced in the rather more difficult territories of Islington, Rochdale and many of our great northern cities, and they deserve the support of the Labour party. That is why the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) should go to Cleveland and give the Labour-controlled council there a good talking to.

Autocrime

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the action taken by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the insurance industry to reduce levels of car theft.

Mr. John Patten: The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the insurance industry have played an active part in the preparation of British standards for vehicle security and for anti-theft alarms. They have also taken steps to increase public awareness of the opportunities for preventing car theft and the insurance industry has established a central register of total loss claims. It is encouraging that, in 1988, theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicles and theft from motor vehicles fell by 6 per cent.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that complete reply. The 6 per cent. fall in crime will be welcomed by motorists throughout the country. Can my hon. Friend say what further measures might be taken to reduce crime? Does he think that if motor manufacturers improved the locking on vehicles, it would reduce crime?

Mr. Patten: We have some good new British standards on car security. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that motor manufacturers can do more. Some manufacturers such as the Rover group and Vauxhall are already doing a great deal. Also, the British insurance industry should strain every sinew to try to introduce new forms of discount to promote car security. It is through such measures that we will produce the admirable results we have seen in Warwickshire—to name a county at random —in the past year where car crime has fallen by about 4 per cent. and theft from cars has fallen by 25 per cent.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that some of the devices fitted to cars cause crime rather than prevent it? Is he aware that I have heard many complaints from people who have had a car noise device go off close to their home and who, having gone out to check that the car was not being stolen, have been extremely annoyed to find that it is not possible to turn the device off?
Such people often have their sleep or their day time greatly disturbed by those devices. What steps are being taken to ensure that the car noise devices turn themselves off after giving a proper warning?

Mr. Patten: If the car alarms have been properly fitted and conform to the excellent new British standards that we are trying to promote throughout Europe—thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—the problems, which, as the hon. Gentleman said can be a considerable nuisance to local residents, can be obviated. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will Government Members please desist from holding private conversations?

Terrorism

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will next meet Ministers of other European countries to discuss international co-operation against terrorism.

Mr. Hurd: I shall be attending a meeting of Trevi Ministers under the Spanish presidency in Madrid on 12 May. I shall also be having bilateral talks with my French counterpart on 19 May when our discussions will include measures to counter terrorism.

Mr. Hunter: Bearing in mind that since 1979 in Great Britain alone, leaving aside the carnage in Northern

Ireland, 323 people have died and 344 have been injured as a result of terrorist activity, only part of which relates to Northern Ireland and, bearing in mind that increasingly terrorism has an international dimension, will my right hon. Friend ensure that appropriate and adequate measures are being taken internationally to combat such crime? What has been achieved and what does he intend to achieve?

Mr. Hurd: Perhaps I can give three short examples of what we are achieving through the work of the Trevi Ministers. We are ensuring the flow of timely and accurate knowledge between forces of a type that enabled the French authorities to intercept the ship Eksund from Libya, which was loaded with guns and explosives and bound for Ireland. We are assessing the work of terrorist groups in Europe and the extent to which they are helped by states outside Europe and we are looking at the legislation in different countries and encouraging countries to adopt legislation such as that which this Parliament has just passed to deal with terrorist finances.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he has convinced any Ministers from other countries to join him in his campaign to combat terrorism?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. That is our common aim.

Mr. Allason: Given the disagreements that appear to have arisen between the various investigating agencies involved in the Lockerbie disaster, would my right hon. Friend recommend the inclusion of the United States in the kilowatt anti-terrorist European group? At present, it seems that the bilateral arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States do not appear to be working very well.

Mr. Hurd: I advise my hon. Friend not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers but to rely more extensively on what Parliament is told about the progress of the Lockerbie inquiry by the Lord Advocate, who is the Minister responsible.
As regards the United States, my hon. Friend is on to a fair point. He will be glad to know that the United States has regular and useful contacts at various levels with the Trevi group of European Ministers.

Mr. Ron Brown: Bearing in mind that no Scottish Law Officer is accountable to this House, will the Home Secretary ensure that his colleague Lord Fraser comes to this place, perhaps to a Committee room, to explain to interested hon. Members exactly what is going on regarding the Lockerbie atrocity? Will he do that, bearing in mind that clearly on the Opposition side of the House we believe in open government and in getting answers to very important, pertinent questions that have been raised on both this side of the Atlantic and on the other? Clearly, this has to be addressed and should not be simply a matter for debate in the press.

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree at all with the hon. Member. The Lord Advocate has a very high reputation in these matters and he has gone out of his way to keep Parliament informed.

Drug Traffickers

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total amount of assets confiscated from convicted drug traffickers in 1989; and what were the comparable figures for the first quarter of 1988.

Mr. John Patten: Our information is that the courts have made confiscation orders totalling more than £5 million since the relevant powers came into force on 12 January 1987. No precise valuation is made of assets frozen pending trial at any one time, but we believe that between £10 million and £12 million is at present subject to restraint and charging orders.

Mr. Couchman: I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend has not got more precise figures to offer on this innovative form of punishment for drug pedlars. Drug peddling is an international crime and much of the ill-gotten gains are laundered internationally. Can my hon. Friend say what agreements he has with other countries in terms of confiscation of funds held overseas?

Mr. Patten: Pretty good progress is being made, with some £5 million confiscated and between £10 million and £12 million frozen. We are making good progress with arrangements with other countries. Bilateral agreements have been signed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department with five countries, and letters of understanding with two others. We are now seeking to make arrangements with countries such as Jamaica and Nigeria, which will also be very important.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: What happens to these confiscated assets? Can I have an assurance that they will be handed over to the police forces concerned so that all these assets can be used in the fight against drugs?

Mr. Patten: The money, of course, goes to the Treasury in this country. Record allocations are being made to the police at the moment. These have gone up by some 52 per cent. since 1979, and the allocations take into account the severity of the drug problem in different parts of the country.

Prisoners

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison in the most recent count.

Mr. Hurd: At unlocking on Wednesday 12 April 49,274 prisoners were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales. A further 87 prisoners were held in police cells.

Mr. Knox: I welcome the fact that the figure is rather lower than it was, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are far too many people in prison at the present time? Does he really think that it is necessary or desirable to lock up so many people?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that the total prison population is about 800 lower than it was 12 months ago, and that the remand population at the end of February was 1,200 lower than it was 12 months previously. We may be beginning to make some progress

in the direction which I know my hon. Friend would like. which is towards having more severe sentences for those who are guilty of serious violent crime but finding disposals other than imprisonment for non-violent offenders.

Mr. Tom Clarke: What steps are the Government taking to reduce the unacceptably high numbers of mentally ill and mentally handicapped persons in prisons, many of them there because the courts can think of nowhere else to send them?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right. Such people should not end up in prison simply because the other agencies cannot find a place for them. This is something which my colleagues and I are discussing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whether or not we have too many or too few people in prison, we simply do not have enough drug traffickers in prison? Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to make certain that continuing high priority is given to ensuring that drug traffickers are locked up, and locked up for long periods?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Shoplifting

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many, and what percentage of people, who were charged with shoplifting offences and who pleaded not guilty, were acquitted during the last year for which records are available.

Mr. John Patten: Ten per cent. of those prosecuted for theft from shops in 1987 were acquitted. We do not have information centrally about pleas. There was, however, a welcome 12 per cent. fall in the number of cases in 1988.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister recognise the vast danger of innocent shoppers being arrested for and, in many cases, charged with shoplifting offences? Does he know of the Tesco case, in which two women who established their innocence found themselves with a massive costs burden because of the payment-into-court system? Will he please discuss with the Attorney-General possible ways of remedying that vast danger and injustice?

Mr. Patten: I know of the hon. and learned Gentleman's longstanding interest in these matters. I am aware of the case to which he refers. If those who are caught allegedly thieving from shops can prove that they were simply absent-minded or confused, the case will fall. We must remember that there is no special category of shoplifting as a crime in this country. Theft is theft, wherever it occurs.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Campbell: Official figures show that the number of people in this country living below the poverty line increased by 55 per cent. in the past 10 years. Therefore, will the Prime Minister call for a commission of inquiry to find out how that happened?

The Prime Minister: The moment we alter the standard of what is called poverty and raise the threshold, obviously it is possible that more people will come in. We have a very good, comprehensive social security system. It contributes to the living standards of a large proportion of the population, and to nearly one sixth of the disposable income of the population as a whole. The £51 billion that we are now spending on social security benefits is more than the Government collect in income tax.

Mrs. Currie: Has my right hon. Friend heard the rumours about increased inward investment in this country, by international firms from Japan, for example? Does she agree that that has nothing whatever to do with Government subsidies or Socialist planning, but a great deal to do with a good work force, single-union deals, and an atmosphere of encouragement for business which only a Conservative Government can provide?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The inward investment record into this country is excellent. Other people have great confidence in the policies that are pursued by this Government, and confidence that they will continue to be pursued without controls in the future.

Q2. Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martin: May I ask the Prime Minister during her busy day to consider the plight of one of my young constituents, Mr. Robert McKee, aged seven, and that of his grandmother? Young Robert was born without any arms. When it rains or snows, his grandmother must hold him by the scruff of the neck in case he falls. He has been refused a bus pass and his grandfather is denied a companion's pass. On seven occasions he has been before a tribunal for a mobility allowance. If the right hon. Lady really cares about the poor and the disadvantaged, why does she make people go through such humiliating hurdles?

The Prime Minister: Of course one would be deeply concerned about any case such as that—[Interruption.] Of course one would, and every hon. Member would. I assume that the hon. Gentleman has taken the matter up with the appropriate authorities. As I said in reply to the last question, the taxpayer in this country pays about £51 billion towards social security, which is higher than the entire yield of income tax. That is the extent of our commitment.

Mr. Steen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Steen: Will the Prime Minister spare a thought this afternoon for the frail and elderly living in private residential homes who can no longer make both ends meet because of the limit on the board and lodging allowance which the DHSS has set for 1988? While there must be limits on public expenditure, even for the elderly, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say something to ensure that those living in private residential homes will not be pushed out if there is not sufficient money forthcoming from the DHSS?

The Prime Minister: In accordance with the general uprating, we have reviewed many of the payments paid to those who live in residential care or in nursing homes, and I think that that is the group to whom my hon. Friend is referring. From Monday, we have provided extra help to nearly nine out of 10 people who claim income support to meet residential care or nursing home fees. We are now helping 150,000 people in such homes compared with 12,000 when we took office, and expenditure has risen from £10 million to £890 million. That is because the economy is successful, and it demonstrates—[Interruption.] Yes, it demonstrates also the extent of our commitment: £10 million when we took office and £890 million now.

Mr. Kinnock: Why is the Prime Minister continuing to lose the battle against inflation?

The Prime Minister: I notice, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in some very percipient replies upstairs, that the level of inflation—it was a miracle that the Labour Government ever achieved it—was a cause of concern for us.

Mr. Kinnock: Why is the rate of inflation in Britain twice the European average?

The Prime Minister: It is not on precisely the same basis —[Interruption.] I would add that the level of unemployment has fallen faster in this country than in all of the European main countries put together.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister explain why unemployment, by her reckoning, is still nearly one million higher than it was when she came to power and why, when the rate of inflation was at the average of Europe in 1979, it is twice the average now? Will she give an answer?

The Prime Minister: The rate of inflation in 1979, when the Labour Government left office, was a lot higher than it is now—[Interruption.] There are now more than 1·5 million more people of working age than there were in 1979. There are today more people in work in this country than ever before and we have a bigger proportion of our people in work than in almost any other country in the EEC.

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that the French and Italian Governments should be spending vast sums of money every year directly in subsidising their own nationalised industries to


undercut British competition, which is costing this country jobs? Will she add her weight to the campaign to make Europe a place in which there is free and fair competition?

Mr. Tony Banks: So that we can all go down the pan.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, state aid is incompatible with the concept of a common market, which is why we must get permission from the EEC in any case where it is given. If my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind we shall of course take them up vigorously, because state aids may be phased out before we reach 1992 and they should already be the subject of permission. The Commission has recently said that it intends to make much more active use of its powers to scrutinise existing state aids in all member states, and it has our strong support in doing that.

Mr. Steel: When, in her next Cabinet reshuffle, the Prime Minister is looking for somewhere to send her right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), which is further away than Wales, will she consider Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes—where the policies and principles that he outlines will be more acceptable than the present ones?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman need worry—I should hardly be sending for him—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: In fact, Scotland and Wales are doing very well because of the economic policies of this Government. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that Scotland has the second highest average male earnings of the whole of the United Kingdom, thanks to the Conservative Government, and to private enterprise.

Mr. David Evans: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of the Union of European Football Associations to allow English clubs back into Europe in the 1991 season, subject to Government approval?—[Interruption.] Does she agree that the Football Association and the Football League would have had their application turned down had it not been for the Government's intention in the Football Spectators Bill, which will drag English football into the next century?

The Prime Minister: In so far as I heard my hon. Friend's question, I agree that the decision is welcome and I wish English football teams well when they return to Europe.

Mr. Grocott: Is the Prime Minister aware that when, in response to the vision and courage of Mr. Gorbachev, she continues to use the tired old language of the arms race, she is not speaking for the British people?

The Prime Minister: Nonsense. The British people are not as easily taken in as the hon. Gentleman. The British people noted that last weekend, for example, East German border guards shot at two people who wished to enter West Berlin, and they are noticing other things that are taking place in the Soviet Union. They know that we must keep our defences sure and that the nuclear deterrent has preserved peace for 40 years—and Conservatives think that peace is important.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Greenway: While recognising that the Green Paper on the reform of legal services is a legitimate matter for discussion by judges, does my right hon. Friend share my relief that the judges' proposed discussion in work time of that paper on Monday is off?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I understand that the judges will hold their discussion on Saturday, 20 May, at a time when the Lord Chancellor will be able to address the meeting as he wishes. That decision is very welcome.

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fraser: If, during her busy day, the Prime Minister has time to go to the supermarket, how much would she pay for a large white and how would it compare with the price 10 years ago?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry, we do not buy large whites.

Mr. David Davis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that port employers employing 90 per cent. or more registered dock workers have given guarantees today against the casualisation of the docks and, accordingly, there is no need now for the dock labour scheme, which we intend to abolish, and there is no need for the dock workers to go on strike?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I understand that in a major statement issued today, the National Association of Port Employers gave a public guarantee that it will not return to casual employment systems after the repeal of the dock labour scheme in July. The guarantee was endorsed by employers representing over 93 per cent. of Britain's registerd dock workers. It stated:
This unprecedented promise deals with the major fear voiced by the dockers since the Government made its announcement … The historical justification of the scheme was to end casual employment. Today's promise carries forward that principle. As such, there is obviously no case for inventing a substitute or revised form of the Scheme or equally calling a futile and unnecessary strike.
It went on to say that it would of course be prepared to enter into discussions in the coming weeks and months about the scheme and conditions of employment which would supersede the ending of the dock scheme.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 13 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: Did the Prime Minister see the sad and remarkable television programme by Esther Rantzen last week which revealed the disgraceful under-resourcing of hospitals and facilities for people who are mentally ill or mentally handicapped? Will she give some sign that the Government know and care about those people and that they propose to provide resources not merely to close


down mental hospitals, but to provide facilities for people outside which is better, but which cost much more?

The Prime Minister: With regard to those in hospital, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, expenditure has

gone up on all hospital services from £8 billion in 1979 to £24 billion this year. With regard to the proposals for community care in the Griffiths report, the Government are considering those and will in due course make an announcement about their decisions.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 APRIL—Second Reading of the Dock Work Bill.
Motion relating to the Housing (Change of Landlord) Regulations.
Motions relating to the Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Mathematics) and (Science) Orders.
TUESDAY 18 APRIL—Opposition Day (7th Allotted Day, 1st half). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Social Democratic party motion entitled "The Commercialisation of the National Health Service".
Motion to take note of EC documents on the single market. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 19 APRIL—Opposition Day (8th Allotted Day). Until about Seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Investing in the Future—The Next Decade". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Care in the Community—The Next Decade". Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Social and Liberal Democrats.
THURSDAY 20 APRIL—There will be a debate on private bill procedure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill procedure (HC 625) will be relevant to the debate.
FRIDAY 21 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 24 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages of the Social Security Bill.

[Debate on Tuesday 18 April

Relevant European Community Documents



(a) 9756/88
Completing the internal market


(b) 10413/88
Information on technical standards and Regulations

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 15-vii (1988–89), para 2
(b) HC 15-ix (1988–89), para 2.]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and in particular I thank him for including the report of the Committee looking into private Bill procedure and for providing time to debate that report next week.
When can we expect the promised debate in Government time on the future of the National Health Service? There was a rumour that that would be held over until some reputable body to do with the Health Service came up with an expression of support for the Government's proposals. Will the Leader of the House tell his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health that that is not going to happen and that we cannot wait much longer?
When are we likely to have the long-promised debate on the Government's proposals to substitute student loans for student grants? What progress is being made to bring forward the Bill to outlaw the buying and selling of human tissue? Has the Leader of the House made any progress in

the discussions which he set in train with a view to establishing a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs or finding some other proposal which might prove acceptable to the House and in particular to Scottish Members?

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree that Thursday's debate on private Bill procedure is important. It is a complicated subject and I look forward to hearing the views of the House on the matter. The hon. Gentleman asked about the National Health Service. The hon. Gentleman will of course appreciate that it will be possible to raise Health Service matters in the debate on Tuesday—subject to your approval, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the general debate that I have promised, he shares with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health a desire to have that debate as soon as I can arrange it. Finding the time is causing the difficulty.
As I told the hon. Gentleman last week, there are consultations and discussions going on about student loans. The right time for a debate is after those have finished.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sale of kidneys. Discussions are taking place through the usual channels about legislation on that matter. I am glad to say that there is considerable support in all parts of the House for the appropriate legislation, and we shortly expect to announce the introduction of a Government Bill.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have had discussions with two of his hon. Friends about Scottish affairs. I told them that I did not see an easy solution, although I thought that their contribution to the discussion was helpful. I am working on it to see whether I can come up with some satisfactory proposals.

Dr. Alan Glyn: In view of the opinion of the House about human rights, can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the matter? Such a debate would reveal that the human rights issue is now international and not just confined to the Soviet Union or south American or to any specific part of the world. If we could have a debate on the subject—contrary to the views of The Times—we might be able to establish some sort of international control.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend speaks for many hon. Members in wanting a debate on this subject. If I were able to arrange it in the short term I should look forward to hearing his contribution. However, I am sorry to say that he must be a little patient with me because I cannot find time immediately for such a debate. I recognise that human rights is an important subject.

Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House will acknowledge that another year has elapsed since publication of the Griffiths report on care in the community, yet during that time the Government have miserably failed to come up with a response. Will he congratulate my party colleagues on initiating a debate next week on that subject which will give Ministers an opportunity to spell out the Government's position? Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify the precise status of the decision taken last night by the European Parliament for tighter controls on car exhaust emissions? When will the House get an opportunity to endorse that decision?

Mr. Wakeham: With regard to the first point about the Griffiths report, I welcome the choice of subject by the


hon. Gentleman's party and think that we shall have a useful debate. I do not think that I can say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be in a position during that debate to announce the final considerations of the Government. Nevertheless, we welcome the debate and will have to find another occasion on which to discuss matters further.
The hon. Gentleman asked about car emission standards. We shall, of course, carefully study the European Parliament's vote and decision yesterday, and in due course we shall study the Commission's revised proposals that we expect it to put to the Council of Ministers in June.

Sir Bernard Braine: In view of the implications for both East and West of recent developments in the Soviet Union and the stirrings that are now taking place in eastern Europe linked with new hopes about the awareness of human rights, when can we expect an early debate on foreign affairs?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise a general interest in this subject in all parts of the House, and the support by my right hon. Friend of the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) is an important addition. I wish that I could find time in the near future for such a debate. I shall look for the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House state that hon. Members who act as consultants for port companies will not take part in the Committee on the Bill, and will not be allowed to vote in or take part in debates on the operation of the dock labour scheme?

Mr. Wakeham: Statements by me do not govern those matters. They are matters for the House and for my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee of Selection and his colleagues on the Committee. It is not for me to make statements on those matters.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend will be aware that earlier in the week the Attorney-General indicated that the object of the Green Papers produced by the Lord Chancellor was to generate as wide a debate as possible on the future of the legal profession. There has been an extensive debate in another place. The judges are apparently having a debate on Saturday. Everybody except the House has had a chance to debate the Green Papers. Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity for a debate here before the end of the consultation period?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give my hon. Friend that promise. Had he been here at a late hour early in the week, he would have found that there was a debate in which the contributions were, if I may say so, of variable quality.

Mr. David Winnick: Can we have a statement next week on how the same sort of stories appeared in yesterday's papers saying that the Secretary of State for Wales was likely to be an earlier victim of a Cabinet reshuffle? Did those stories originate with Mr. Ingham? Is the Leader of the House aware that in any such statement next week the point will no doubt be made that it is undesirable for a civil servant, a close member of the

Prime Minister's kitchen Cabinet, to have such influence in the country, bearing in mind his dishonourable conduct at the time of the Westland affair?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman uses Parliament to express his point of view. I do not complain about that, but he makes disgraceful and disagreeable remarks that are not based on substance. I do not think that they are worthy of a reply.

Sir Hal Miller: Further to the vote in the European Parliament on vehicle emission standards, does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be in the interests of car owners, environmental lobbyists and motor manufacturers alike for a definitive decision to be reached as soon as possible because of the probable expense for the car owner and the technology likely to be involved for the motor manufacturer? May we have an early indication of what the Government seek to achieve on the matter?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is an important matter and that there are alternative solutions to the problem. The announcement that I made, that the Government will study carefully the decision of the European Parliament and in due coure the Commission's revised proposals, is the most constructive way forward.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I welcome the announcement that there is to be a debate on the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. Can the Leader of the House tell us why there has been a delay in giving the Government's response to that report? Is he aware that highly controversial Bills, such as the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, are going through the House at the moment? The objectors to that Bill are at a grave disadvantage compared to the promoters. Is he aware that the delay in implementing the Government's response to the report, which we hope will be favourable, means that we are continuing to cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds?

Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Lady recognises that the subject is considerably more complicated than the way she phrased her question would lead one to believe. Whether or not the Government can come to a clear view on all aspects of the report next Thursday, from many readings of the report it is clear that it would require a substantial amount of primary legislation to enact it. That clearly cannot be done at this stage in the Session. The right procedure is for the House to express its views next Thursday. I hope that the hon. Lady is called to express her view. I hope that hon. Members will use the occasion to debate the principles underlying these important matters rather than deal with particular cases. I hope to learn something from the views of all parts of the House. Then we shall decide how best to proceed.

Sir Richard Body: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Baptiste), will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision concerning a debate on the Green Papers on the legal profession? Last week in another place, a succession of dinosaurs were trundled through at the behest—we understand—of the Lord Chief Justice, giving a very unfortunate impression of the legal profession. Some of us who are more in touch with public opinion would like to put another point of view.

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I attended part of the debate and read it. Some of the analysis was not as accurate as it might be. A considerable number of noble Lords spoke in favour of the proposals. I believe that a majority of those who spoke and who are not lawyers were in favour of them. However, I shall still find it difficult to make time for a debate in the very near future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When the judges go on strike on Monday—[Interruption.] If there are further developments, and if there is an unofficial strike, will the Home Secretary make a statement in the House? If that demonstration takes place in the Strand, will appropriate plans be made for a road block? If the leader of that gang, Lord Donaldson, ex-head of NIRC, finishes up in gaol, will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for the Official Solicitor to fetch him out? If people like me want to attend that spectacle, will passes be needed?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of important issues, and I do not have at my fingertips all the details that he will need for his voyage of discovery. However, I can tell the House that a press release about that matter was issued this afternoon and that the judges council has decided to postpone the meeting to a Saturday. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will welcome that decision.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Did my right hon. Friend note the report in The Scotsman that the Opposition intend carrying out line-by-line trench warfare against the Bill now being considered in Committee room 12, to give Scottish parents the right to govern their own schools? As Opposition Members who are members of that Committee have already shown that they are more interested in time-wasting than in reasoned argument by, for example, filibustering an amendment that the Minister had already accepted, will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a timetable motion so that the will of Parliament, as expressed on Second Reading, will be carried out?

Mr. Wakeham: I find it hard to agree with my hon. Friend. I thought that any Opposition worth their salt would use reasoned argument in debate. I have not studied in detail what is going on in the Committee, but I shall be extremely surprised if the Opposition are devoting themselves to trench warfare and other ploys, which I am sure would be quite disreputable.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House find time next week or in the near future for a debate on the prison conditions and the circumstances surrounding the reference to the Court of Appeal of the Guildford Four? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is continuing concern about the health and condition of all four prisoners while awaiting discussions at the Court of Appeal? There is also considerable concern about a report in The Guardian last Monday of a dispute between the Home Office and Somerset and Avon constabulary about non-payment of money by the Home Office for that constabulary's inquiries, and the statement that it has refused to undertake any additional preparatory work in connection with the reference to the Court of Appeal until the constabulary has been paid for the last inquiries that it undertook. Does the Leader of the House agree that that matter is serious and warrants debate?

Mr. Wakeham: It is a serious matter, and I have grave doubts whether it would be right and proper to have a debate in the House at the present time. However, if the hon. Gentleman will write to me with more information, I shall ensure that he receives an answer.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on the provision of television licences at a concessionary rate to pensioners living alone, with their spouse, or with another pensioner? That is an important matter, because for some pensioners television is their only form of companionship, and for many of them it provides a window on the world.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that it is important to make that concession to some pensioners but I cannot see a way to find time for a debate at present. My hon. Friend might care to raise the matter on an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall bring the Leader of the House back to the debate on private Bills. It would be helpful if the Government's response to the report were made official because it is difficult for people who are considering promoting Bills to know when the procedure may change. Is he aware that by the time a public notice has been put out about the Bill until the time it is brought forward is about two years? It would be helpful if he could tell us whether he intends to accept the report in principle and whether he expects it to be implemented about this time next year.

Mr Wakeham: We held discussions through the usual channels and felt that it was right and proper to debate this on the Adjournment to enable everybody to put their point of view. The Government will give their initial considerations next Thursday. That is the best way to proceed.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the leak in today's Guardian which says that the Government seem to have suffered a most welcome degree of repentance over their hard-line views on the Official Secrets Bill? Is it true, as the newspaper says, that the very amendments that the Government refused to accept in this House—strengthening the harm test—are to be introduced in another place? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we shall be given an opportunity to debate these important issues in the House.

Mr. Wakeham: I am certainly not in a position to state what amendments will be tabled in another place. My hon. Friend may already appreciate that if the amendments are accepted in another place, he will be able to debate them in this House in due course.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When the Leader of the House was considering whether there should be debates on the numerous reports produced by the Procedure Committee, was the absence of time a consideration in his mind?

Mr. Wakeham: The absence of time is a consideration in every debate that I organise in the House. We had a debate on the outstanding Procedure Committee reports some time ago. It was not well attended but it was useful, nevertheless. We shall no doubt have to return to the subject again. Time is always a problem but getting the answer right is probably more important.

Mr. Michael Latham: When he answers a parliamentary question next week, will my right hon. Friend explain why the House can act as a legislative sausage machine all the time, but our best minds cannot solve the problems of how to prevent constituents standing in the rain when they wish to go round the Line of Route? Can we solve this problem as soon as possible?

Mr. Wakeham: There are difficulties, and some problems to which there are no easy solutions. However, I take my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we last had a Bill as controversial and unheralded as the Dock Work Bill, which the Government are steamrolling through the House in the shortest possible time? It is a controversial Bill and there is no question of it going through with co-operation from the Opposition. Is there a conspiracy between port employers and the Government to try to provoke a strike within the dock industry to cover up the domestic problems now confronting the Government—such as the local elections—and create a domestic equivalent of the Falklands war? Why will not the Leader of the House give us proper time to consider the proposals, reach a conclusion and have a proper debate, rather than merely put a legislative stamp on a piece of nasty conspiracy which is being carried out between them and the employers?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman's views are flavoured by the colour of his tie today. The Dock Work Bill has been introduced in proper time for consideration at appropriate intervals and will be dealt with in a correct and constitutional fashion.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my right hon. Friend find time at an early date for a debate on the need to reform and tighten the law on trespass, particularly the problems connected with large gipsy convoys and illegal gipsy encampments?

Mr. Wakeham: I know that that causes concern in some constituencies, and I was asked about it by one of my hon. Friends last week. I cannot promise early legislation, but I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Max Madden: May I again ask the Leader of the House if he will make early arrangements for a debate on issues arising from the publication of the book "Satanic Verses"? Does he agree that Moslems living in Britain have a democratic right to have their deep sense of grievance and offence over the book's publication recorded by the House, and should not the general public have a democratic right to a debate in the House on how we can promote better understanding and respect in a multiracial, multi-faith Britain for all traditions, cultures and religions?

Mr. Wakeham: I have a deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Views expressed by the Government—and, indeed, by a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—have shown the considerable concern aroused by those serious events. I do not, however, feel able to promise an early debate on the subject.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend is a democrat—with a small "d"—without

parallel. On the subject of exhaust emissions in the European Community, as I understand it, this was the Commission's revised proposal. The Commission, of course, is not a democratic institution and has connived with the European Parliament—an institution of somewhat flawed democracy, as it is seen in this country—to produce this new solution. It has not been agreed by a British Minister—a British Minister who is responsible to the democratic control of this House. What can the House now do about it? Have we had it? Is it all over?

Mr. Wakeham: We cannot do anything about it in Business Questions, that is for sure. I think that my advice to the House was right: we must see the Commission's revised proposals, which we expect it to put to the Council of Ministers in June. We shall then be able to reach a view.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Leader of the House recognise the concern of many hon. Members that the Government have again failed to announce that time will be made available for a debate on foreign affairs next week? Do they not provide insufficient time annually to discuss foreign affairs—at a time when important developments are taking place in, for instance, Namibia and South Africa—so that we must depend on Adjournment debates such as tonight's? Should not the Government provide more time for us to discuss their role of influence in such matters?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's view. I do not suppose that I would take him with me if I said that we have a substantial amount of important legislation to get through, but dealing with these matters is always a question of balance.
I have corresponded with a number of right hon. and hon. Members about the foreign affairs debate. There is something that the House can do: perhaps some hon. Members could speak rather more briefly in the foreign affairs debates that we do arrange. I recognise, however, that that is not the sole problem, and I agree that it would be highly desirable to find a bit more time.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Notwithstanding this afternoon's announcement of the retreat of the judiciary, may I join the request from both sides of the House for a debate on the Green Paper proposals on law reform? Many of us believe that the judges behaved very insensitively, but the great majority of our constituents do not now place much credence in their views on the reforms.

Mr. Wakeham: One of the advantages of the postponement of the meeting from a Monday to a Saturday will be that the Lord Chancellor will be able to address the judges. That, I think, is a wise step.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: May I ask the Leader of the House in all seriousness whether, if the Government want to avoid a national dock strike, it would not be right for them to allow consultations with the union—which have not taken place so far—and for the House to debate the matter before Second Reading of the Bill? I believe that all concerned want to avoid a national dock strike——

Mr. Neil Hamilton: We don't.

Mr. Loyden: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. If there is no response, we are bound to take the view that the Government want a dock strike.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that all sensible hon. Members want to avoid a dock strike, but I cannot accept the proposition that a democratic House of Commons cannot discuss legislation introduced in it by a Government with a clear majority in a proper constitutional fashion.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend will be aware that as of today 272 hon. Members, including many Conservative Back-Benchers, have signed an early-day motion calling for the introduction of a dog registration scheme. My right hon. Friend will also be aware that on each day since the motion was tabled, 1,000 dogs have been put to death, which amounts to 100,000 dogs. I appreciate that it is not a matter of burning international importance, but it concerns many people. Will my right hon. Friend either find time for the House to debate the matter or, at the least, draw the significance of those figures to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend is, of course, aware of early-day motion 348 and the strong views of hon. Members. Nevertheless, the Government have made it clear that they do not consider that a registration scheme would do anything to assist dog welfare or control. I regret that there are no plans to implement section 37.

Mr. Ray Powell: I appreciate the fact that the Leader of the House has to allocate time to certain Bills and has to define priorities. However, he might have listened to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) during which the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) said that he would like to see a strike being called by the dockers. Why was priority given for the Bill on the dockers to be discussed next week, where there are more important items and Bills waiting to be discussed in the House, such as the Children Bill? Why do the Government delay such Bills just to get legislation they want on to the statute book?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is not being fair or reasonable. The arrangement of business in the House is done through the usual channels and there are discussions about the most convenient days for business. I have already announced the programme agreed and it is the best way to proceed.

Mr. Robert Adley: For many years, I have pestered my right hon. Friend for some action to bring to a satisfactory conclusion the future of the Settle to Carlisle railway line. May I take the opportunity formally to thank my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues for a historic decision, which has been universally acclaimed in the House and far beyond? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the decision made by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is historic? There has never before been a refusal of a closure of that nature. If it is a U-turn by the Government, it merely refutes those who say that the Government are always inflexible and never listen. In view of the rising environmental clamour, which we all understand and support, and which points to a happy future for the railways, will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to debate the investment criteria that the Treasury lays on British Rail?

Mr. Wakeham: Until the last sentence, I was going to say that that was a nice question from my hon. Friend. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for most of what he said and I shall convey his congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I do not see myself able immediately to find time for a debate on the subject of the investment criteria for British Rail. However, it seems that there may be several occasions in the not too distant future on which the subject could be brought into the debate.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the hypocrisy of the Opposition Front Bench? Is he aware that the Labour party has an industrial policy group, which is charged with the responsibility for evolving a policy opposed to privatisation without frightening off the voters? A leak of documents from that committee has been roundly condemned by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) as mischief-making and disloyalty. He has said that he will have strong words with the leaker at the national executive meeting or the industrial policy group meeting this afternoon. Can we assist him by offering the use of the special branch or the police to investigate? Is it not extraordinary that the Opposition are delighted to welcome leaks when information is leaked from the Government, but when their own information is leaked, they are all in favour of secrecy?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I can find time for a debate on that important subject during the coming week, but my hon. Friend makes his point in his own way and it will be noted.

Points of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have heard that the Second Reading debate on the Dock Work Bill is to take place next Monday. Before the debate, I should be most grateful if you could advise the House about the position of hon. Members who stand to benefit if the Dock Work Bill is passed and the national dock labour scheme is abolished. Ought they to be allowed to vote at the end of the Second Reading debate? The Register of Members' Interests suggests that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have directorships or parliamentary consultancies that are connected with the docks. The abolition of the national dock labour scheme would directly benefit the interests that they serve in the House It is important that you should consider giving advice as to whether it is proper that such Members should vote on Second Reading.
During Business Questions there were exchanges, particularly involving my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), about the selection of members for the Standing Committee, if the Bill is given a Second Reading on Monday. The Leader of the House said that that is a matter for the Chair of the Committee of Selection. I am advised that the Chair of that Committee—who is up to his eyebrows in commercial interests, but I leave that on one side—cannot take into account Members' interests when he selects the members of Standing Committees. As the Chair of the Committee of Selection is not allowed to take such matters into account when selecting members of Standing Committees, it must therefore be a matter for you. It is for you to consider whether it is appropriate that hon. Members who will directly benefit from the abolition of the national dock labour scheme should be selected to serve on the Standing Committee.
I ask you to look at the Register of Members' Interests. I have looked at it this afternoon and found that it is littered with the names of hon. Members who have a very direct interest in this matter. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was clearly heard by a number of Opposition Members to say a few minutes ago that he wants a national dock strike. It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Tatton is a consultant to the National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators. Opencast operators will benefit if more profits are to be made in dockland by the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. Those are the interests that the hon. Member for Tatton serves.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I can deal with this matter. It has always been in order for hon. Members to vote on a matter of public policy. That is an established principle. It is not just the Chairman of the Committee of Selection but the Committee of Selection as a whole that decides who should be nominated to serve on the Committee.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling about the precedent for the selection of hon. Members, but I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). It is an important issue. As we know, the Transport and General Workers Union has a great deal of interest in the outcome of the Bill. If we were to consider the position of a few of my right hon. And

hon. Friends, would it not also be in order to consider the position of a great many Opposition Members who are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, not least the Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: The same principle applies. It is a matter of public policy, and it has always been in order.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you, like me, have always admired the skittish sense of humour of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), exhibited once again this afternoon. In respect of the point that he made about my own interests, declared in the Register, it certainly would not be in the interests of opencast coal producers in this country to encourage imports of coal. Therefore, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I can hardly be said to be a slavish follower of my own pecuniary interests.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has said: it is appalling that Labour Members should seek to impugn the integrity of other hon. Members, in whatever part of the House, for outside interests that are properly declared. I hope that, in speaking about the various policies that we have to debate, we do so untrammelled by personal interests. For instance, I do not impugn the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for accepting a roof over his head from the Transport and General Workers Union, nor the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), whose roof is provided by the same body. I certainly do not believe that, in their opposition to the Government's proposals for the docks, they are influenced in any way by the financial advantage that they gain from union sponsorship.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we can profitably carry on this exchange.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same point?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has now said that he is happy to associate himself with the proposed dock strike that is being organised by the Prime Minister and her Front Bench. Everybody in the country—at least most people—recognises that it has all been set up. As the hon. Gentleman seems so keen to declare his association, as he does not deny my hon. Friend's comment that he relishes the idea of a dock strike, and as he is quite happy to talk about the declaration of interests, of which I have none, perhaps he would be happy to tell us how much money he gets from all his interests.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Two seconds ago you heard—indeed, we all heard—the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) refer in disparaging terms to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). It used to be the custom of the House that, when one Member wished to say something disparaging about another, he gave that Member notice. I wonder if you can tell us whether that is still the convention and will you invite the hon. Gentleman to say whether, in this case, he did give notice to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Speaker: That is the convention, and in that connection may I say to the whole House that I hope that


all hon. Members will read the recent report of the Select Committee on Procedure on this matter and on the question of the conventions and of good order in the House. So far as the Bill is concerned, I trust that the debate on Monday will be carried on in the best parliamentary traditions.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave general notice to the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) in early-day motion 702, which points out that the hon. Member, who is Chairman of the Committee of Selection, holds seven directorships and four parliamentary——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not in order now.

Orders of the Day — Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Driver licensing is designed to improve safety and reduce casualties. May I quote "Another Voice":
Others have lost sisters before. Every day people lose husbands, wives, parents, children and friends they have loved, whose loss reduces every perspective to dullness, misery and pain. In many cases they carry the pain around with them for the rest of their lives. At moments like this, one realises that under the surface of a polite society there is a great well of sadness and bereavement, an aspect of the human condition which is as inescapable as it is seldom remarked, yet looming larger in many people's lives than any of the things they pretend to think important. The only excuse for allowing my own howl of anguish to he heard is to give those as yet unbereaved a glimpse into the hellish blackness lying under the surface of their lives before they sensibly turn away and think of something else.
Those words, written by Auberon Waugh, come from the Spectator of 15 February 1986.
This Bill, introduced in another place at the beginning of December, makes provision for a number of improvements in road traffic law. It should again be widely welcomed as a sensible and largely uncontroversial piece of legislation. This debate will give the House a chance to discuss broader issues of transport policy. Some were highlighted during our consideration last Friday of the Parking Bill. We welcome each opportunity to publicise the Government's sensible policies for traffic management.
The Bill is in two main parts. I shall start with the reduction of road casualties which is relevant to two proposals in part I.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today announced provisional road casualty figures for 1988. These show a fall of 2 per cent. in deaths compared with 1987 and a 1 per cent. drop in serious injuries. To put that in a more historic context, since 1975 there has been an average reduction of deaths on our roads of 30 a week. With just over 5,000 people killed on our roads last year and over 63,000 seriously injured, that reduction is not enough.
Over 400 children under 14 were killed last year, with nearly 8,000 seriously injured. Of those aged between 15 and 59, more than 3,200 died and nearly 47,000 were seriously injured. Of those aged 60 and over, nearly 1,400 were killed and over 8,000 seriously injured.
Parents, relatives, neighbours, colleagues and friends shared the tragedy of over 68,000 loved ones lost through death on the roads or with lives wrecked by serious injury. Over a quarter of a million more people of all ages were slightly injured. More than 320,000 people suffered directly last year as a result of accidents on our roads.
In July 1987, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set the target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000. Overall, deaths are now down 10 per cent. on the 1986 figure of 5,600 a year. That is encouraging when set against a 25 per cent. increase in


traffic over the same period. Overall, for deaths and serious injuries, casualty rates have fallen by 20 per cent. but we still have a long way to go to meet the target in the year 2000.
Clause 6 deals with training for new motor cyclists. It will make a significant contribution. Motor cyclists are one of the most vulnerable groups of road users. Motor cyclists' casualty rates are the highest for any type of vehicle. Motorcycles and mopeds make up less than 2 per cent. of road traffic. A seventh of all deaths and a fifth of all serious injuries are to motor cyclists. In 1988 that meant that over 670 motor cyclists died and over 12,000 were seriously injured.
Lack of skill, lack of experience and inadequate defensive riding techniques are the reasons. I do not want to hide the fact that in many accidents involving motor cyclists another road vehicle is involved and the driver of that vehicle often was a contributory fault. In the past five years some 40 per cent. of all motor cyclist casualties were under 20 years of age. That means that over 100,000 families have been affected.
There is no requirement for motor cyclists to take any training at all. Learners can ride for two years on a provisional licence. If they wish to carry on riding, they must pass both parts of the motorcycle test. In practice, many riders take neither training nor tests. They simply give up riding after two years—or sooner, if they have a serious accident.
Clause 6 will make training of new motor cyclists compulsory by introducing new limitations on the condition of use of provisional motor cycle and moped licences. It will become illegal to ride on the road unless the motor cyclist has successfully completed the prescribed basic training course or is in the process of being trained.
This proposal has been widely welcomed by road safety organisations and the police, by motor cycle manufacturers and dealers, by training centres, individual motor cyclists and by motor cycling groups and their representative bodies. We are discussing the content of the new course with training groups. We shall introduce the new system as soon as possible.
Our road safety record may be the best in Europe but it is still not good enough. Accident rates are falling but not fast enough. This proposal will make one good contribution to the reduction of deaths and injuries on our roads.
Clause 2 deals with a different road safety issue. It provides that in future licences to drive any prescribed class of goods vehicle or fare-paying passenger-carrying vehicle will generally need to be renewed every five years once drivers pass 45 years of age. Drivers of more than 65 years of age will need to renew their licences annually. A medical report will be needed with each application for renewal. This change will ensure that drivers of large vehicles are subject to regular medical checks. It will reduce the risk of the driver of a lorry or a bus collapsing behind the wheel and endangering a great many lives.
The remainder of part I paves the way for a new unified driver licensing system in Great Britain.
At present, the familiar car licence is issued by the Secretary of State through the driver and vehicle licensing centre at Swansea. Licences to drive heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles are issued through independent

traffic commissioners in 11 traffic area offices. One professional driver can therefore have two or even three separate licences and is answerable to two different licensing authorities—the Secretary of State and the traffic commissioners.
Professional drivers who go abroad can face problems. Authorities in other Economic Community countries are not used to the idea of dual licensing. Virtually all other member states use a single licence showing all driving entitlement.
The Bill provides for the United Kingdom to introduce a single licence showing all driving entitlement. The Secretary of State will become the sole licensing authority. All driving licences will be issued centrally from Swansea. Professional drivers who go abroad will have the benefit of an internationally recognised licence. All drivers will benefit from a more efficient streamlined licensing system, because the DVLC's lower costs will be reflected in the fees charged for all licences.
The introduction of the new licence will enable the United Kingdom to meet its commitments under the first Council directive on driver licensing. The Economic Community initiative to harmonise driver licensing systems was fully debated by the House on Tuesday night. As I explained then, this Bill does not compromise our position on the Commission's proposal for a second directive to complete harmonisation.
In particular, this Bill enables us to maintain our opposition to the proposal that drivers of minibuses and light goods vehicles should take two tests and meet higher medical standards. I repeat that we are distinguishing here between professional drivers of minibuses with fare-paying passengers and the non-professional drivers of minibuses whose passengers do not have to pay fares.
We shall continue to press the Commission strongly on this issue. The firm support which the House expressed for the position will be helpful. The Bill is drafted on the assumption that we shall win the arguments in Brussels. If we were unsuccessful in Brussels and had to adopt any of their proposals, we should need to come back to Parliament before we could implement further changes. I am not contemplating failure.
Part II of the Bill provides for the licensing and regulation information systems. These are systems which give drivers, through special in-vehicle equipment, route guidance and warnings on traffic conditions. The best known example of a driver information system is autoguide. Some hon. Members have had an introduction to autoguide through the demonstration scheme which the Department of Transport is now running in the Westminster area. I take this opportunity of inviting other hon. Members who would like to see the demonstration to let me know. We believe that autoguide and systems like it can do much to ease congestion and speed up traffic.
Road spending has increased substantially under this Government. Provision in this financial year for motorways and trunk roads is over £1·2 billion. New roads alone will never provide the complete answer to congestion.

Mr. Greg Knight: Can my hon. Friend tell the House now, or ensure that it is told in the winding-up speech, the answers to the following questions? First, in the explanatory memorandum at the beginning of the Bill, page iii, under the heading "Financial Effects of the Bill", in the second paragraph,


should not the reference be to clause 10 and not clause 9? Secondly, on the subject of clause 10(8), can my hon. Friend tell the House why the Government feel it necessary to regulate the charges that may be made by a licence holder to motorists for information from a driver information system? Does this not smack of Socialism? What is wrong with a free market operating in this area?

Mr. Bottomley: I am tempted to remind my hon. Friend of the various other Bills and Acts of Parliament which have gone through recently and which seem to me to do a hit more on regulating charging by various larger bodies which do not face an enormous amount of competition. But it may be better to take his invitation to answer his questions in winding up.

Mr. Gary Waller: On the second of the two points which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) raised, am I right in thinking that it is planned that the Government will make a choice of which system is to operate, that it would be very difficult to have competing systems operating in this country and that therefore it is inevitable that there should be some kind of regulatory regime?

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is not likely that two people will set up a pilot scheme in London, or a full scheme in some part of Derbyshire, for example, or on the Airedale route. I do not think that I am regarded as one of those who are most likely to want to regulate the price of these things. Perhaps it is a detailed point which, if not today, could be discussed in Committee. Perhaps we can reach a conclusion if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading today.
I was saying that new roads alone will never provide the complete answer to congestion. Scope for new roads in the middle of towns and cities—where congestion is worst—is strictly limited. New roads will not solve the problem of the lorry that overturns on the motorway and causes a 10-mile tailback.
Autoguide was conceived in the United Kingdom by the Government's transport and road research laboratory. TRRL has estimated that an autoguide system throughout London could help drivers to reduce their average journey times by about 10 per cent. and reduce mileage by about 6 per cent. The system has the potential to make even better use of existing roads and cut congestion. The success of autoguide will depend on co-operation between a number of different interests. The Government have been involved in the early development of the system and in promoting this legislation. Under clause 9, my right hon. Friend will be the licensing authority for autoguide and other driver information systems.
The future development and financing of autoguide will fall to the private sector. The success of the system depends on commercial development and marketing. It should therefore be promoted and financed by the private sector. My right hon. Friend has invited the private sector to make proposals for a large-scale autoguide pilot scheme in the London area. If the scheme were successful, the operator would have the right to upgrade it to a fully commercial system to which the public could subscribe. Proposals are due to be submitted to the Department by 21 April.
The autoguide pilot scheme will involve participation by local authority associations and the police. They will want to be sure that the system will not prejudice road

safety or good traffic management. So will the Government. A special group is being set up, comprising representatives of local government, the police and the Department of Transport, to oversee the monitoring of the pilot scheme.
Autoguide involves collaboration with our European partners. There is already an Anglo-German draft standard covering an important part of the technology. Discussions with other member states are starting. An experimental autoguide-type system is already operating in West Berlin. Trade barriers within Europe are disappearing. In time, and with further successful collaboration, it may become possible to drive from London to Paris, Rome or Berlin, receiving route guidance all the way.
The fact that part II of the Bill is concerned with autoguide-type systems does not mean that we are pursuing advanced technology at the expense of other approaches. The Department of Transport is engaged in a number of initiatives to improve information to drivers. At the other end of the technology spectrum from autoguide, we are doing a major review of the statutory traffic signs regulations. We have designated 1989 the "year of the sign".
Part II of the Bill is necessary for two main purposes. An operator of autoguide—and possibly of other types of driver information system—will need powers to install roadside beacons and certain other apparatus. Much of the infrastructure will be installed by the existing public telecommunications operators—currently British Telecom and Mercury. Other parts will be installed by the operator of the system, using the new powers in clause 12.
Legislation is also necessary to ensure that the introduction of advanced driver information systems can be properly controlled. Clause 10 will enable my right hon. Friend to attach conditions to licences to operate driver information systems. A licence could, for example, provide that a particular system could direct traffic only on certain roads or classes of roads. The proposed autoguide pilot scheme will give us a good idea of what licence conditions are necessary for a commercial system.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to spell out our policies for transport in London. It is our policy to improve the quality and capacity of rail and underground links into and around central London. It is our policy to secure more reliable bus services which are better matched to the needs of customers. It is our policy to make the best possible use of existing roads, through good traffic management, support for enforcement of parking controls and the use of advanced technology such as autoguide and like systems, now being extended to most of outer London, which give buses priority at traffic lights. It is our policy to provide through traffic with good alternative routes around London. It is our policy to build new roads to relieve the very worst congestion black spots and to provide for better orbital movement and better access to poorly served and developing areas.
It is equally important to state what are not our policies. It is not our policy to drive new motorways through London. It is not our policy to build any new roads unless they can be justified within the normal planning procedures which provide for consultation with local residents and others. It is not our policy to pander to those who wish to commute to central London by car in


traffic jams when they could get to work more easily and safely by rail. It is not our policy to write a detailed master plan which would be out of date before the ink was dry.
The more vociferous commentators and pressure groups should take note of these policies. In particular, groups such as the Association of London Authorities should stop misleading people with visions of a new motorway box being cut through leafy suburbs. That is emphatically not our policy.

Mr. John Prescott: The Government must be sensitive about that.

Mr. Bottomley: It is not just a question of being sensitive.

Mr. Prescott: They have to be sensitive on that one.

Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman would listen with his ears rather than with his mouth, he might hear what I am saying. Radio stations such as LBC, which cannot distinguish between motorways and other roads, needs to listen clearly because its listeners are interested, and I suspect that many others in London are interested as well.
We can consider the details of the Bill in Committee. This is not a major piece of legislation. Its provisions will be of benefit to many road users. Drivers of lorries and coaches will be able to obtain their licences quicker and at lower cost, new motor cyclists will be properly trained and less likely to be killed or injured and all road users will benefit from less traffic congestion and fewer delays when systems such as autoguide are in use.
I hope that the House will agree that the Bill should be given a Second Reading.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill's provisions. As he knows, I am quite new to this brief, though I am having to learn quickly this week. Indeed, such is the speed of political events, if not of the traffic around Westminster, I thought that I should have to ask for a statement this afternoon.
I am delighted to learn that the Department has today denied that it has ordered an inquiry into Sir Keith Bright's allegations about the London emergency services which so sullied the debate on the Fennell report yesterday. We believe that Sir Keith's allegations had more to do with his contract than with anything else, but I shall be writing to the Secretary of State about the matter.
As I said, I am new to this brief, but even as a lay person I had grasped what were the major transportation concerns and problems of this country, and certainly of London. In my naivety, when I saw that the Government were introducing a new piece of legislation, I thought it just had to be the Road Traffic (Integration of Transport Policy) Bill that we had all been waiting for. Might it, I asked, be the measure to set in motion the backlog of proposals necessary to bring some order to our transport chaos? But that was not to be. We are delivered instead of the Road Traffic (Tinkering with the Problem) Bill, not to mention the Road Traffic (Private Funding Solution) Bill.
None of the measures in the Bill is necessarily objectionable and, as the Minister pointed out, its provisions, by excluding non-commercial minibus drivers,

protect our common position of opposition to regulation of the voluntary sector. Most of the measures are commendable, but we have grave reservations about aspects of part II. Together, however, the measures are unlikely to have more than a marginal effect on our transport problems, particularly in London, which will be the location of the pilot scheme for autoguide. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that, as parliamentary time is being made available to facilitate commercial transport schemes, it will be made equally available to provide for and resource public transport improvement.
The first part of the Bill is consequent on the EC directive on the Community driving licence and will centralise the issuing of drivers' licences, bringing all forms of licence entitlement together in one document. This part of the Bill also lays down more stringent requirements for the renewal of vocational licences. Drivers with those licences will have to seek renewal from the age of 45 every five years and from 65 annually, accompanied by mandatory medical checks. In general, we support this part of the Bill, although I have some questions for the Minister.
The Government estimate that savings of 100 jobs or £1 million per year will be made by centralising the process at Swansea. I questioned the Minister about that on Tuesday but as he failed to give a concrete answer, I shall ask him again. Will he take the opportunity to increase the number of staff at Swansea so that delays in obtaining licences are reduced?
My second question relates to the medical tests proposed for all holders of vocational licences. I am aware that many drivers already complain about the appeal system and I foresee apprehension among drivers about the new proposals. Perhaps in Committee the Minister will give us some comparisons about how such procedures are carried out in other European states. It is clear from the proposals that some drivers who undergo more rigorous medical tests may find that they are debarred from driving and thus lose their livelihood.
The Minister will remember that, in 1984, his Department's medical advisory committee recommended paying compensation to drivers who were prevented from working because they failed medical tests. What is the Minister's attitude to that? As he has not taken this opportunity to introduce compensation arrangements at the same time as imposing more severe requirements on drivers' ability to do their jobs, what does he plan to do? We shall return to this question in Committee if we fail to receive a satisfactory answer this afternoon.
I turn now to clause 6, which implements one of the Government's proposals on motor cycling as set out in their White Paper, "Motor Cycling Safety". As the Minister said, increasing motor cycle safety must be a top priority. Motor cycling has by far the worst accident risk, as the Minister outlined so clearly. However, many motor bike accidents result from other drivers paying insufficient attention to bike riders and there is clearly a need for car, bus and lorry drivers to be made more aware of road safety in relation to bikes.
One of the encouraging signs for us—and I am sure for the Minister—and one which we applaud is the way in which the motor bike organisations are now encouraging riders to take training courses. I hope that the Minister will consult the motor bike organisations thoroughly, because we politicians often disregard too easily the needs, problems and aspirations of young people. The fact that


those organisations opposed the introduction of crash helmets in the past and that they were clearly wrong to do so has meant that many of us have perhaps not given them enough credit for a more positive attitude today. I understand that the motor bike groups, as well as safety organisations, are readily supporting the Bill's compulsory training course to replace part I of the motor bike test. We are delighted that that is so and wholeheartedly give our support to the measure.
However, concern has been voiced by the organisations that are responsible for safety and for running the courses which the Government failed to meet in the debate in the other place. I take this opportunity to raise those concerns here, although, again, we shall doubtless return to them in Committee. First, there is concern about the number of training places available. In the other place an assurance was given that there are over 900 training centres. However, an informal survey shows that the centres are by no means evenly distributed throughout the country and there are gaps, especially in rural areas. In some places, therefore, aspiring drivers will be unable to take the course that would allow them a provisional licence. Does the Minister agree that the scheme should not come into effect until it has been ascertained that there is adequate national provision for the courses?
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance also that the instructors on the courses will be of a sufficiently high standard. The instructors have an examiners' role, so they should be tested themselves. I understand that every training centre must be authorised by the Secretary of State and I suggest that a scheme similar to that for car examiners should be introduced, with every examiner having to be qualified. It is important at the outset of a scheme to ensure that the highest standards are obtained and that there is uniformity of testing throughout the country. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what arrangementss he is making for regular monitoring of the training centres.
Has the Minister any ideas about the likely level of charges? He has the power to set the maximum charge for the course. Perhaps he would like to comment on an unofficial suggestion that a course might cost up to £50. As he will realise, that is a lot of money for a young person, and the course lasts only one day. As no minimum figure is set, the cost is likely to be less in areas where there are more training centres according to the rules of supply and demand, but in rural centres the cost may be near the maximum permitted figure.
I am sure that many motor cyclists who read the reports of our debate will want to know what sort of figure the Minister has in mind. Clearly, it will be desirable for motor cyclists to continue training beyond this inevitably cursory one day. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage more people to take up advanced training courses? Will the Minister give us an idea of the likely time scale for the changes in the length of the provisional licence, the right to carry pillion passengers and the entitlement of car drivers to ride motor bikes?
We have some disagreement with the Government over autoguide. The Minister has explained to the House how autoguide operates and I do not propose to repeat his explanation. I acknowledge that autoguide could have some useful effects in helping drivers find a quick, less congested route to a given destination. It would doubtless be useful, as the Minister suggested, for longer journeys and for journeys throughout Europe. It would be

especially valuable for diverting motorists from accidents on motorways, and it could therefore clearly contribute to preventing the motorway snarl-ups with which we are all so familiar. I am aware that the Transport and Road Research Laboratory in its original research suggested that autoguide could result in 500 fewer casualties a year and a saving of journey time of about 10 per cent.
Naturally, the Opposition, like the Minister, are in favour of such reductions. However, I suggest that it is impossible to judge the effects on casualty figures of one specific proposal in isolation. Ministers have not always favoured schemes because casualty figures would be reduced. I remind the House of the Government's attitude towards the GLC's low fares policy which was specifically designed to take people off the roads and put them on public transport to reduce accidents, which it did.
Where is the Minister's strategic plan for dealing with the chaos and congestion on our roads? We have heard nothing about that today. It is extraordinary that, of all the measures which the Minister might have brought to the House, he has prioritised this measure. As the impact of autoguide will be felt principally in London, at least in the first instance, I want to consider its likely effect here while accepting that it will be useful on long-distance journeys outside the capital city.
The scale of the traffic problem in London can scarcely be over-estimated. According to Government figures, about 160,000 people commute into London every day by car. About 3 million vehicles are registered in London and the home counties. People sit in traffic jams every day, get impatient and try to make progress by driving via residential roads and rat runs. They park illegally, thereby aggravating the problems and the dangers. In 1986, about 500 people were killed and 50,000 injured on London's roads. The emergency services are now severely affected by delays, sometimes with fatal results. In 1975, the average speed of an ambulance was 25 mph. Now it is little more than 11 mph.
Public transport in London has become less reliable and more overcrowded. The Minister talked about his hopes for improvement. I was delighted to hear that, and I look forward to those hopes being realised. Because of the difficulties with public transport, especially with buses, people are tempted to drive to work, and that leads to increased congestion. There is widespread agreement between the Government and the Opposition that urgent action is needed. A recent Confederation of British Industry report said that London was "strangling itself to death". That report draws special attention to the need to move quickly on repairing roads, on completion of road works and on cracking down on parking offenders. The difficulties caused by such matters could be eased by proposals that are already drafted and agreed by the relevant organisations and that are waiting in the queue for parliamentary time.
The Minister says that autoguide will help to ease London's traffic problems. I doubt it. There is even a danger that autoguide will encourage greater use of the car. That was denied in the other place, but will a measure designed to aid the motorist through London not encourage more people who might previously have decided to make the journey by public transport to attempt car journeys? The Minister must assure the House that, if it appears from the pilot project that more people will be interested in using their cars as a result of the autoguide, he will reconsider authorising its use. At the


very least, autoguide will do nothing to discourage the use of the car and the Minister has said that there must be such discouragement.
I accept that, in their consultation documents, the Government have acknowledged the danger of encouraging the use of rat runs. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has the power to tailor licence applications to the needs of particular areas. We think that that safeguard is insufficient, especially given the lack of prior consultation and participation by local authorities. I shall return to that matter.
The Minister will be in something of a dilemma when he comes to license different routes. He will be under pressure to agree as many roads as possible. If only the main trunk roads are authorised, the usefulness of the scheme will be severely limited, but there are major problems in authorising the use of unclassified roads in London. The primary problem is safety, to which the Minister gives top priority.
Several organisations have already expressed concern about the safety aspect of autoguide. The Department of Transport document entitled "Transport In London" draws attention to the fact that about 48 per cent. of accidents here were among the most vulnerable road users—pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists. The majority of child pedestrian accidents occur within 400 m. of home. That means that they occur on residential roads. Any measure that increases the likely use of residential roads increases the possibility of accidents on those roads, even if accidents on trunk roads were to decline as a consequence.
A further danger may arise from the expectations of people who purchase autoguides. The motorist who buys it will do so in the expectation that he—I expect that the majority of purchasers will be men—will have a quicker journey. That will give rise to the danger of cars speeding down unsuitable roads and the drivers paying less attention to road safety than they would have done if they had not been directed to a specific road. There are ways to control the use of residential roads and the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety and local authority organisations have said that the involvement of the highway authority is absolutely crucial.
Our concern has been heightened by reports emanating from a recent consultation by GEC, which is a member of the RAC consortium, with London boroughs. I understand that the boroughs were told that autoguide would be commercially viable in London only if it included roads other than categories A and B and aimed at 20 per cent. of the traffic flow. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if that is an accurate assessment and just how many vehicles that would be.
In my constituency I am dealing with a strong residents' protest movement in Gellatly road where residents face the passage of 15,000 vehicles a day. It is a typical south London rat run. Lewisham council and I are desperately seeking a solution to the problem, but we see it immediately being exacerbated by autoguide. The Minister must tell us how he would view such a case.
The response of a local authority to a newly created rat run is likely to be environmental measures to slow down the traffic and restraints to limit it. What will happen when a local authority publishes a traffic order to that end and

autoguide objects? Arguably autoguide could show traffic going back to the designated network, thus bringing the Department of Transport into the argument. How does the Minister propose to adjudicate in such cases when the Department is so wholeheartedly behind the autoguide proposals?
I give notice to the Minister that in Committee we shall seek to give the highway authority statutory involvement in the planning and monitoring of the system. Only in that way do we think that the needs of ordinary people can be protected from the development of more rat runs and more danger in their neighbourhoods and more difficulties in their homes. At least the rights of the authority should be guaranteed. The minimum should be the right of an authority to intervene if something goes wrong. We shall table an amendment to that effect. I hope that the Minister will take on board the concerns of local authorities in that respect.
I have explained in detail our misgivings about the autoguide system. We are aware, of course, that a similar project is being carried out in Berlin, but there is one crucial difference. That project is being carried out as part of a set of traffic management measures, financed predominantly by the public sector and integral to already existing traffic management schemes. That is not the case here. None the less, despite our misgivings, I assure the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I will take the opportunity that he has offered us to see autoguide in operation for ourselves.
There are other measures in the pipeline that could have a real and lasting effect on London's transport problems. We welcome the publication of the White Paper, "The Road User and the Law", following the North report. I hope that legislation will be brought forward on that in due course. However, the Minister will be aware from the debates in the other place that there is a strong feeling on this side of the House that no more time should be wasted before bringing forward legislation on the Home report.
New street works legislation becomes more vital every day as the level of building activity in London increases. New legislation is needed desperately to deal with the problems caused by holes in the road. Hon. Members will appreciate the irony of giving priority to the measure before us rather than to street works legislation. By providing the operator of a private information system with power to install apparatus in the highway, the Bill will add to the problems and complexities that the Home recommendations are designed to tackle.
I have concentrated on our differences in approach and on the contentious points in the Bill. No doubt we will return to those in Committee. It will help the whole House if the Minister can give a further account of the Government's attitude when responding to the points that I have raised.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I want to concern myself with one part of the Bill, clause 6. I think that everyone is in favour of training for young learner motor cyclists. I have had discussions recently with the Motor Cycle Association of Great Britain Ltd., so I think there are various points that it is important to raise at this stage. I begin by declaring an interest; I think that I am one of the few Members who ride a motor cycle


regularly—in the summer months, I hasten to say. I often use a motor cycle to go to and from the House during that period.
Motor cycles, especially big ones, are potentially very dangerous machines unless they are treated with the greatest respect and concentration. If one rides a motor cycle, one soon learns that there is very little between oneself and the road, and one remembers that an accident is nearly always more damaging to a rider of a motor cycle than to a driver of a car.
I well remember being in the Isle of Man, and riding with the marshals around the 37½ mile track between races, "sweeping up" after a great parade of the champions of the past. I came to Braddon bridge after one of those great heroes had spurted oil all over the track. I found myself arriving at the bridge at 50 miles an hour on my bottom, an extremely uncomfortable experience. I think that I was Chief Whip at the time, so that was probably the least that some hon. Members would have liked to happen to me.
We must always remember that riding a motor cycle is one of life's most exhilarating experiences. I hope that no misplaced zeal by any Government will reduce further the enormous pleasure that motor cycling brings. I applaud very much the Government's desire to encourage better training through clause 6. According to the explanations that we have had up to date, the provisions of clause 6 will lead to serious problems in rural areas. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) said that it has not been made clear how many training centres will be established. I have heard a similar figure to the one that she heard.
Let us say that there are to be 1,000 training centres around the country. I understand that that would be one for every 80 square miles. Even then, in many parts of the country there would be only one for every 150 square miles. I shall be surprised if many people in my constituency, for instance, do not live more than 20 miles from a training centre. That will cause a major problem for those who have to travel long distances to training centres from their homes or from wherever they purchased their motor cycles.
I am told that the courses may last between four and six hours. No doubt at certain times of the year it will not be possible always to fit in the course in one session. If there have to be two sessions to complete a course in a rural area, a considerable distance may have to be travelled within the triangle of place of purchase, training centre and home. Especially, there will be the problem of the person who fails to satisfy the examiner and who finds himself, perhaps fairly late at night, more than 20 miles from home, with no public transport available. What is he to do? It is a serious problem to which the Minister must address himself.
The Motor Cycle Association of Great Britain believes, as I do, that there is only one solution. There must be a special exemption for those who live, let us say, more than five miles from a training centre. There is a dispensation in the MOT test for cars when the previous MOT certificate is out of date. The Government will have to think about making a similar dispensation in respect of motor cyclists travelling directly, on a single occasion, within the three-cornered route that I described.
An amendment was made to clause 6 in another place to allow certain exemptions. That may be the means by which the Government will be able to meet my point. It is important that, during the Bill's passage, the Government

make their intentions clear. They have already said that they understand the problems of islanders, and have promised to consult on that point. However, the Government must give specific answers. If that is not done, the situation will become impossible for many young people in rural areas, many of whom have low incomes.
A motor cycle provides the young man living in a rural area with the only reasonable method of getting around, but it could become an impracticable option—especially if the cost of the test is prohibitive. The hon. Member for Deptford was right to ask about that aspect. I heard that the cost might be nearer £25. Even so, that is a large sum of money for a young man living in a rural area who has already laid out money for his motor cycle.
I am very bothered by those aspects. I hope that the Government will grant exemptions of the kind that I have described. My hon. Friend the Minister might reflect on the fact that many young men in rural areas in particular learn to ride motor bikes at 10 or 12 years of age. My own sons could ride a motor bike around my farm like demons when they were aged about 10. Many young men in the country learn to ride off the roads and are perfectly competent. They have much greater opportunities to learn the basics of riding a motor cycle than do young people in the towns. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to respond sympathetically to the points that I have made.

Sir Philip Goodhart: The clauses dealing with the proposed unified driver licensing system are sensible enough. However, I note that there were two substantial debates in another place on amendments relating to eye testing of drivers. Substantial arguments were made for requiring regular eye checks for older drivers and for extra resources to be made available for research into how many road accidents are attributable to bad eyesight with a view to amending driver licensing legislation the next time around.
My belief, based on personal experience and on private anecdote, is that regular eye tests are an important factor in road safety in respect of older drivers. I am sorry that the Minister in another place was not more forthcoming. I hope that, before the Bill reaches the statute book, the Department will be able to say that more resources will be made available for research. I note also that we shall have to return to this subject in the comparatively near future, because of the European harmonisation programme and the regular system of consultation with our European partners. Several member states have more stringent eye tests in the granting of driving licences than we have. We shall inevitably be compelled to return to that aspect in 1991, if not before.
I welcome those provisions of the Bill that deal with the training of motor cyclists. I recognise, as do all right hon. and hon. Members, that motor cycling can be exceedingly dangerous and that a motor cyclist is 14 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than the driver of a motor car. That was brought home to me when I was a duty Minister in Northern Ireland about nine years ago. One weekend, nine motor cyclists were killed on the roads of Northern Ireland. Had nine residents of Northern Ireland been killed in a terrorist attack, on Monday afternoon there would have been a statement in the House and everyone would have expressed concern. But because


those killed were just motor cyclists, no one bothered about them, and those deaths were barely reported this side of the Irish sea.
I welcome also the Bill's provisions for training. It is ludicrous that we have gone for so many years without making any requirement for training motor cyclists. However, I would not place too much store by this measure. About 45 years ago, in the Army, I was given excellent training by former TT riders. We learned to ride faster than otherwise we would have done, and very exhilarating it was. However, I am not sure that we became much safer riders.
The Bill's provisions will result in a cut in the number of casualties, but I attach more importance to the proposals, to which my hon. Friend the Minister has referred before, for limiting the engine size of motor cycles that young, inexperienced riders can use. My hon. Friend referred to limiting engine capacity to 400 cc for riders with only two years' experience. I hope that a measure will soon be introduced giving force to that recommendation. However, in that respect we are being held back by European consultations, because not all our EEC partners agree on that proposal, which has been around very much longer than our membership of the Community. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm that action will be taken.
I welcome also the Government's proposals for autoguide, which is an exciting and important potential development. I notice that the Government say that the system will have to be linked to an urban traffic control centre and that the pilot scheme will take place in London. I hope that means that we shall soon have a proper urban traffic control centre in London, because one of the glaring deficiencies in London at the moment is the absence at the highest level of a London traffic management unit. I hope that the introduction of this autoguide pilot scheme will mean that we shall soon have a traffic management unit at a high level.
The great majority of drivers will certainly not have autoguide before the end of the century. I hope that more effort will be devoted to warning ordinary motorists about road works which may lie in their path. Earlier this afternoon, I drove up the M3 from a meeting in Southampton; warning signs about road works ahead were admirable in size and placing, and motorists were warned well in advance of any problems that lay ahead.
In London, in the course of last week, I wasted more than an hour in traffic jams that were caused by road works, for which absolutely no warning was given in time for motorists to take evasive action. I hope that the Department of Transport will take this matter seriously, because it affects traffic flow in London.
It would be churlish not to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the fact that road traffic casualties have reached a record low for 34 years. I do not always agree with my hon. Friend on these issues, but he has done a great deal to raise the political visibility of this issue. The Bill is another small step towards improving road safety. I hope that, in the next Session, a much bigger Bill will be introduced to implement the sensible recommendations of the North report and the Government's White Paper.

Mr. Gary Waller: I welcome the Second Reading of the Bill, which contains some extremely valuable proposals. With regard to part I, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the road freight industry is entirely in favour of the change to a unified system. Even if that had not been a requirement of the European Commission—a directive laid down for us to follow—we would have been wise to get rid of our present system and adopt the system proposed in the Bill. The present system is extremely confusing, and can be described as an anachronism. The new system will be an improvement for employers and drivers because it will make life simpler for them and improve their relationship.
We should consider a number of consequences which flow from the change. The licence system for heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles will be brought into line. There is nothing in the Bill about how the provision for medicals will operate. As I understand it, that will be incorporated in regulations. It would be helpful if, when winding up, my hon. Friend the Minister said a word or two about the system of medicals, which is important for drivers.
The changes that implement the first European Community directive—the proposals in the Bill—can be related to the further draft directive debated in the House on Tuesday. During that debate, concern was rightly expressed about a requirement for a new threshold requiring drivers of minibuses used by voluntary groups to be tested, and for there to be a requirement to obtain a licence to drive public service vehicles.
The new draft directive also requires a change in the threshold from the present 7·5 metric tonnes to 3·5 tonnes for heavy goods vehicles. Identical concern has been expressed by those who operate smaller goods vehicles, and this is something we should consider when talking about the proposals that are incorporated in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take as vigorous a view on that point as he has said he will on many other matters in the second draft directive. If implemented, the change would double the number of drivers needing heavy vehicle tests and put an additional strain on resources. We must ask—as with so many other issues—whether that is justified in road safety terms. Is this merely a matter of harmonisation which in itself is good only if it achieves a valuable objective? The consequences of that change will be much more severe in Britain than in other Community member states.
All organisations—as I do—welcome the proposal for training motor cyclists. A report recently published by the Institute of Motorcycling entitled "Characteristics of Urban Motor Cycle Accidents" has just come to my notice. It draws some interesting conclusions.
My hon. Friend the Minister conceded that other road users were sometimes to blame for accidents. It is interesting to note, that on the basis of the 9,600 accidents in the Greater London area investigated by the researchers, 62 per cent. of accidents involving motor cycles, mopeds and scooters were primarily caused by other road user groups.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: That does not wash. It is about that proportion of accidents that involve another vehicle. It is incredible to believe that every one of the crashes and collisions is the fault of other vehicles. The plain truth is


that some vehicles do turn right without their drivers making the life-saving check in the mirror to see whether a motor cyclist is overtaking. At T-junctions drivers look left and right, do not notice a motor cycle and pull out in its path. However, that is only one part of it. It is easier to find examples—especially in urban areas—of motor cyclists taking action which does not allow other motorists a chance to escape unscathed. I think that what we need to deal with is mutual risk-taking. I hope that my hon Friend will forgive me, but he was saying something that has been said by a number of motor cyclists—a diminishing number, I hope.

Mr. Waller: My hon. Friend interrupted me before I was able to qualify what I was saying. I certainly maintain that a large proportion of accidents are caused primarily by other road users. Of course, by riding defensively motor cyclists can sometimes, perhaps often, avoid accidents that would otherwise be caused by the actions of other road users; an experienced rider will be able to anticipate those actions and thus escape disaster.
I urge my hon. Friend to read the report. The research was carefully carried out and shows that 35 per cent. of accidents were caused by motor cyclists themselves. The findings are based on statistics from the Metropolitan police, and I do not think that we should ignore the report's conclusion that, at the very least, a substantial proportion of accidents involving motor cyclists are attributable primarily to other road users. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue his Department's efforts to make those road users more aware of motor cyclists. At one time leaflets were included with car licences——

Mr. Bottomley: That is still being done.

Mr. Waller: I am glad that the practice continues. Because of the nature of their machines, motor cyclists are peculiarly vulnerable.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has listened to what motor cycle organisations have to say. That goes for the British Motorcyclists Federation and for the Motorcycle Action Group, which is not always kindly disposed to my hon. Friend: indeed, the way in which it has directed some of its diatribe at him has been very regrettable. I welcome my hon. Friend's willingness to consider again such matters as leg guards. His attitude contrasts with many motor cyclists' picture of a Department that is deaf to any representations that it may receive.
I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) about aspects of the training system. We need to be satisfied that training facilities will be adequate to meet demand, and also that arrangements will be made to ensure that training standards are high enough. All motor cyclists will of course be required to undergo and complete a training course, but I wonder what would happen if a trainee, having completed the course, nevertheless gave indications of unsuitability to ride safely on the roads. There seems to be no requirement for a test to be passed at that stage.
There is also the practical difficulty, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, of the motor cyclist who needs to get to the training centre. Often suppliers of new machines will arrange for the machines to be delivered to the centre,

which is a responsible approach, but many motor cycles are bought second hand and dealers may not be able to deliver them, especially if long distances are involved.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the MOT test exemption. If the keeper of a vehicle needs to get it to the testing centre, because in such circumstances he may not possess a tax disc, special provision is made. That demonstrates that a certain amount of flexibility has been used in the past to deal with practical difficulties. To deal with another such difficulty. it could perhaps be arranged for the trainer to meet the new possessor of a motor cycle somewhere other than the training centre and to accompany him to it. In any event, I hope that further thought will be given to the problem, which will no doubt apply to many new motor cyclists. Like my right hon. Friend, I do not wish to put any obstacle in the way of those who are keen to embark on motor cycling, as I share his enthusiasm.

Mr. Jopling: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not think that that last suggestion would work. If two young men wished to attend a training centre and each was more than 20 miles from it, for someone to collect them individually would involve a round trip of 40 miles. That really is not a runner, particularly late at night.

Mr. Waller: My right hon. Friend has a point, although I do not imagine that such a problem will arise in the case of all participants. A certain amount of flexibility would help the minority who may have a problem.
Autoguide is a welcome development. I think that it will be particularly helpful to motorists who are unfamiliar with an area, especially in overseas countries. I hope that it will be possible to obtain a measure of co-operation from other countries—perhaps through the European Community—to ensure compatibility and interchangeability of roadside and car equipment.
There is no doubt that autoguide is not a solution to the problems of congestion. Like many others, I believe that an expansion and acceleration of the road programme must be an important facet of our approach to the problem—which, as we know, costs the country many billions of pounds a year through the companies that operate within it. Nevertheless, autoguide can play its part. It is, of course, only one of many current developments; another is the digital radio system, which I am sure will be used in the next few years by many more drivers than have access to autoguide.
Autoguide, however, has the great benefit of being an automatic and interactive system. It does not necessarily require information to be fed into it, involving the intervention of individuals, as is required for announcements to be given out to motorists through the digital radio system. It is one way in which we can approach the solution of many problems which cost this country dear each year and it should, therefore, be pursued.
I regret the rather negative approach of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) to autoguide. She is, of course, right to say that we have to pursue other solutions as well and I agree that autoguide is not the only answer. But that should not preclude us from seeking a system which has a great deal of novelty and value. The hon. Lady was concerned about rat runs. I understand that the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club and the two consortia involved are very


much aware of that concern and are determined that they will not go in for rat runs as a way of enabling motorists to avoid congested areas. We should turn our faces against the idea that one should introduce rat runs through residential areas.

Ms. Ruddock: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how it is possible to avoid creating rat runs in residential areas, as most people in London live in areas where there is a great deal of overcrowding already and autoguide will transfer many people from one road to another? In theory, at least, it is difficult to see how one would not create new rat runs by that procedure.

Mr. Waller: To the best of my knowledge, the consortia are determined that they will not adopt that approach. It is important that we should not allow the scheme to be strangled by red tape. Although we should be aware of the problems and difficulties, we should not allow a preoccupation with bureaucracy to prevent it from taking its place within a reasonable time scale.
The hon. Lady said that she regretted that we were not adopting an integrated transport system at this stage. To me, such a system involves direction rather than choice and that is the difference between the approaches of our two parties to transport. It is interesting to note that, although the Labour Government gave themselves powers to direct freight transport operators, they did not use those powers. Powers of direction are often quite impracticable, however much one may like to theorise about them. The Government are in favour of giving choice to the consumer of transport services. Nevertheless, it is the task of Government to provide the framework in which road transport is safer and more convenient, so that individuals can exercise their choice in a way that is more satisfactory to themselves. The Bill meets those criteria and I welcome it warmly.

Mr. Roger Moate: I was intrigued to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that 1989 would be the year of the sign. He should be aware that motorists, especially angry motorists, are capable of more than one kind of sign and, in his experience and mine, many of them have been directed at the Minister for Roads and Traffic. It would be interesting to know just what the year of the sign will entail. If we are talking about driver information services, a great deal of anger is caused when the road-signing system appears to break down. It would be helpful to know about the programme that will be of benefit to motorists during the year of the sign.
I very much welcome the Bill and the constructive approach from the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) and the Opposition. Despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) found the hon. Lady's approach rather negative, I thought that it was fairly positive. She brought to the Dispatch Box an element of charm, a weapon not often deployed by the principal Opposition spokesman on transport, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I expect that she will be more successful than he is at persuading the House of the merits of the case.
However, when she talked about the autoguide system, she was on somewhat dubious ground, first weeping

crocodile tears for the poor motorists caught in traffic jams every day. She then said that she hoped that autoguide would not be a means of attracting more motorists into the capital or other cities. But presumably the object of autoguide is to avoid congestion and to make life easier for motorists, in that they will not be so frustrated. The hon. Lady is trying to have it both ways. If autoguide works—and we hope it will—it will undoubtedly make life better for motorists and perhaps will attract more of them into cities. The hon. Lady must make up her mind whether she espouses the policy of discouraging motorists through congestion or the policy of helping them by making their lives easier.

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Member will know that whenever there is an easing of congestion it attracts more motorists. If motorists perceive that autoguide will give them a smoother passage, they may exercise the choice about which hon. Members have spoken and instead of making the journey by public transport, which they may perceive to be slightly difficult, they may decide to make the journey by car because of autoguide. That point must be taken on board.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Lady is simply repeating the dilemma, but she has not solved the problem. Autoguide is designed to make life easier for motorists. She is either for or against. I choose to believe that she is in favour of it, judging by her fairly constructive remarks.
I went to see the autoguide experiment at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. I went in a sceptic, but came out an enthusiast. I want to pay a compliment to the laboratory. It is not often that Government establishments are complimented on the work they do. The laboratory has produced a scheme that is admirable because it is technically advanced. The cost of applying autoguide even to the whole of Greater London seems to be relatively small in capital terms and the system could become available to motorists in a relatively short time scale. It is practical and economical and could contribute greatly to reducing traffic delays, journey times and costs. It is a welcome development and it is also an exportable system which will bring valuable benefits for this country. Equally, it is not a panacea and it is not meant to be. It is simply one method of easing the problems of motorists.
This country has not yet realised that congestion has nothing to do with party politics or the success or failure of past or present transport policies. This country has not taken on board the scale of congestion we shall face in years to come. If we look at the forecast growth in vehicle traffic on roads for the next few years, not just in the number of vehicles but in the extent of the usage of those vehicles, we ain't seen nothing yet. Our streets will become grossly more congested and none of us has yet come up with the method of tackling the problem, whether in London and our other cities or in our smaller towns. Some pretty painful nettles will have to be grasped in the years ahead. For the moment, we should welcome autoguide, as it will undoubtedly be of help, it will work and it could turn out to be most popular.
The next aspect of the Bill to which I shall turn is uncontentious, but of considerable importance to the motorist. This is not an insignificant or unimportant Bill. The driving licence, for example, carried in 31 million pockets, wallets and handbags, is precious to all motorists. If one tries to take it away from a motorist, one realises


how precious it is to him. The format of that driving licence is almost as important and delicate a matter as the format of the passport, which is another contentious matter. Like many others, I deeply regret the passing of our old driving licence, that rather nice, maroon, stiff-covered document that could be tucked away and did not become too tatty. It was replaced by a rather tatty green bit of paper in an awkward plastic container. I believe that the newest licences are pink, but mine is green. They are tatty, bureaucratic pieces of paper.
I welcome in principle a unified licence and a common format for Europe and for the whole world. However, the international driving licence never caught on. A unified driving licence would have great advantages, but I plead for a return to a decent format. We should persuade Europe to adopt a driving licence that drivers would be proud to carry rather than these poor, tatty pieces of paper. Alas, if one has to produce them too often or if one has to have them endorsed too often they soon become very tatty indeed.
On the question of a common format and a unified licence, I understand that it is difficult to endorse the licence of foreign drivers. It is vital, therefore, in the interests of justice, fairness and of the irate victims of foreign drivers that there should be powers to deal promptly with foreign drivers, including the confiscation of their licence, if necessary. I hope that the Minister will say what powers the courts will have to take stringent action against foreign motorists and the drivers of heavy goods vehicles from the continent who infringe our laws and are involved in accidents. Our powers to deal with them are limited.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) referred to eye tests. The Bill provides for more stringent medical tests for the drivers of heavy goods vehicles and passenger service vehicles. However, I am not clear about how much more stringent the tests will be. That should be spelt out, either now or in Committee. Millions of people need a driving licence for their job. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the requirement that drivers of heavy goods vehicles must have a medical test is to be extended to the drivers of smaller, lighter vehicles—3·5 tonnes as against 7·5 tonnes. How many more people will be affected by the new requirement? If they are to be required to have regular medical checks, that is an important matter for them. We ought to be told about the scale of a change of that significance.

Mr. Waller: In case there is any doubt about the matter, I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposed change will take place only if the second draft directive of the European Commission is implemented. However, there would be a knock-on effect if it were to be implemented in that form. It would have an effect on the medical examinations that are provided for in the Bill.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has made an important point. A number of draft directives affect our licensing procedures. We are entitled to know what chance we have of persuading the European Community to adopt our point of view about minibus and heavy goods vehicle licences and other matters. If we are not successful in persuading the Community, what powers do we have to resist the directives? If we have no power to resist, is it inevitable that these changes will be made? They

are not necessarily bad and they are not necessarily wrong, but the implications for British drivers ought to be spelt out.
I do not believe that regular medical tests or eye tests are against the interests of the motorist. They are designed not to hinder but to help him. If the driver of a heavy goods vehicle has regular eye tests, the intention is not to push him off the road but to ensure that he wears glasses, if he needs to do so, or has adjustments made to his glasses. The tests are designed to help drivers to stay on the road without causing accidents.
The Minister knows that I have strongly urged the introduction of regular eye tests for motorists. I should like such a provision to be included in the Bill. However, the Minister and his Department have been somewhat sceptical about eye tests. Their case is that there is no evidence that a significant number of accidents have been caused by poor eyesight. However, one knows from experience that that is wrong. Police forces have carried out eye tests. They believe that bad eyesight causes accidents. A strong case has been made out for regular sight tests.
I am delighted that a few days ago Swinton Insurance —one of the largest motor insurance brokers in the country that arranges insurance for about 1 million motorists—announced that it had issued a notice to all its motorists saying that they ought to have regular eye tests, otherwise they would be in danger of invalidating their insurance.
Stringent Government action would not be needed and it would not involve them in any expense. All that the Government need to do is to encourage the British Insurance Brokers Association to tell all motorists that they are in danger of invalidating their insurance policies if they do not have frequent medical and eye tests. That would help the Minister in the tremendous campaign that he has waged so consistently over the years to reduce the number of accidents on the roads.
While I have been a Member of Parliament I have spoken in debates on various transport Bills. Each time we have referred to new tests for motor cyclists. However, we have not achieved the desired objective. There is to be another requirement. I hope that it will work. I have been visited by groups of motor cyclists in my constituency. We. have disagreed from time to time about crash helmets and other related matters, but generally speaking they have adoped a responsible attitude and have been very responsive. I hope that if new tests are to be introduced we can give to motor cyclists the message that training facilities will be made available for them. It would be frustrating to impose restrictions that caused long delays and made it difficult for new motor cyclists to obtain a licence.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was a member of the Cabinet when these groups of people came to see me. That helped me greatly. They thought that Conservatives do not like motor cycles and never ride them, but I was able to tell them that the Minister of Agriculture rode a motor cycle. That was a very persuasive argument. Unfortunately, I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that it is an exhilarating experience. I tried it only once. I thought that I was using the brake, but it turned out to be the throttle and I ended up in a rose bush. It was all very painful. Four wheels are very much safer than two. However, I accept that many people gain much satisfaction from riding


motor cycles. If we are to introduce regulations that affect motor cyclists, we must ensure that improved training facilities are provided for them.
My hon. Friend the Minister wandered slightly away from the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps I may do so also. He referred to his general policy for transport in London. We have talked a great deal about congestion. Much emphasis has been placed on the rail study. The Government assume that that is the last word to be said about new railway services in London. I do not believe in an integrated transport system. It never works. We shall make a serious mistake if we believe that these rail proposals are the last word.
One part of London directly affects my constituency in Kent, but there are no Underground services in south-east London. The rail study said virtually nothing about easing the congestion on the roads and on British Rail by providing new Underground services to that part of our capital city. It deliberately ignored that matter and argued that its brief and remit did not extend to trying to relieve congestion on the roads, that it was simply a matter of trying to ease the existing congestion on the central railway line. I hope that my hon. Friend will very soon tell us a little more about what studies the Government intend to launch into the question of extending the Underground rail system to other parts of London to reduce some of the congestion, which is massive at present but will increase in intensity in years to come.
With those remarks, I welcome the Bill very much. I am glad that it appears to have the support of all parts of the House.

Ms. Ruddock: By leave of the House, I would like to respond to a number of points that have come up in this debate and to reiterate briefly some of those that I made earlier.
The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) talked very effectively about the difficulties in rural areas. Like him, we are particularly concerned about the provision of training centres. It is very clear that young people in these areas need motor cycles. We all know that there is often a lack of public transport suitable for getting a younger person, for example, to a first job, so a motor bike becomes essential to that young person's future. I think the hon. Member referred only to young men. These days, many young women too want to use that cheaper form of transport to help them have a reasonable life in rural areas. I reiterate that the Minister should not begin this scheme unless he can assure us that there will be sufficient centres and that everyone, no matter where he or she lives, will have a choice as to mode of transportation, where that is not in direct conflict—as, in this case, it certainly is not—with community interests as a whole.
It is particularly important that the training proposals be supported. As I said earlier, Opposition Members are very much in favour of mandatory training for motor bike users. However, I am sympathetic to the points that were raised by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about how a young person might be enabled to take the test on his own machine. That is desirable, but

within the provision at the moment it would seem to be very difficult. I hope the Minister will be able to help us on that point.
The question of eye tests and the possibility that they will become more stringent was raised. By introducing charges for eyesight tests, the Government have created a particular disincentive to people doing the best for their own eyesight, and we are very fearful that more stringent, difficult and lengthy tests would attract even higher fees.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) expressed regret about the lack of an urban traffic control centre. I reiterate that what this capital city needs is a strategic planning authoritiy. Nothing will deal with the present chaos unless we can plan strategically and take account of all possible modes of transportation and all possible solutions to the problems that we encounter.
The question of roadworks and the difficulties that people have in circumventing them was raised. That is bound to bring to the Minister's attention just what will be the nature of the roadworks involved in the provision of the autoguide scheme itself. They might be considerable, but we ought to know. Let me reiterate what we are in favour of. We are very much in favour of the harmonisation of the licensing scheme; we are very much in favour of better training for motor bike users; and, of course, we support the Minister in everything he does to bring forward measures to improve road safety. Equally, we reserve our right to be critical of measures which come in isolation—autoguide is an example—when other methods and other measures might produce even better results.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) appeared to support our case that, because of the potential immense growth in car ownership and usage, we can solve these problems only by greater and better provision of public transport.
As I said at the outset, we believe that, while autoguide may be very useful in other parts of Britain, there is no justification for piloting it in London as though it might provide a real solution to London's transportation chaos. I suspect that the results will be marginal. I have yet to encounter in London a road that does not have a lot of traffic, and I believe that the possible problems and risks are very considerable. I know that my consituents in south London will be extremely concerned at the possible creation of rat runs—a question which I believe has not been dealt with adequately in this debate, though I have great hopes for the Minister's response, which is about to come. Perhaps he will tell us specifically whether autoguide routes can be restricted to A and B roads. If so, he will put a somewhat different complexion on these proposals and on the information that I gave him, which I believe came from a meeting involving GEC—a member of one of the consortia—which stated categorically that it would not be profitable if only A and B routes in London could be used.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: By leave of the House, I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate. Their contributions may make matters easier. It may make it easier to prepare for the Committee stage to have some of the detailed points available and ready. I shall do what I can now to answer many of them.
I am rather surprised that there are no Liberal or SDP Members here. We seem to be missing some of the


nationalists also. I am grateful that we are back to two-party politics. It has always struck me that liberals like myself ought to be dominating each of the major parties——

Mr. Greg Knight: On that point, is it not a fact that there is a good case for making the pilot autoscheme available, free of charge, to Liberals and Democrats so that they might on occasions find their way to this Chamber?

Mr. Bottomley: It is true, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, probably recall, that on Tuesday we were talking about how they could all fit into a minibus. It looks as though they did not have the autoguide system to bring them into the Chamber at the right time.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) did well to ignore totally the beguiling talk of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). It is not a lack of charm but intemperance that we have noticed in her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). His storming into the Chamber just after 11 o'clock last night to tell the House what it should or should not be doing, based on a badly sub-edited report from the Press Association, destroyed much of what had been a fairly important debate. The more often that the hon. Lady is allowed to take these debates for the Opposition, the better we will move forward. It may be that her hon. Friend will be promoted back to the Department of Energy fairly shortly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): No, no.

Mr. Bottomley: I welcome my hon. Friend's comment.
I want to turn to some points that have been made in the debate. An important point concerned other Bills that could come before this House in the future. The Home report will be moving towards legislation and we fully accept the case. Obviously it is not possible to give a commitment to a date of introduction, but the time has not been wasted. The utilities, the statutory undertakers, the highway authorities and the Department of Transport have been doing essential development work on fleshing out the Home report, and agreement has been reached on contentious issues. That means that when the legislation comes before the House it should be possible to consider it in detail without too much dissension. It is important to recognise that the Home report and the replacement of the public utilities and streets works legislation should lead to cost reductions both for the statutory undertakers and utilities and for the highway authorities, and should lead to a better deal for those who pay the charges of the utilities, those who fund the local highway authorities, and should provide better movement through the streets for bus passengers, car drivers and, for that matter, pedestrians on the pavement.
There has been a reference to the North committee. The response to the North committee report was published recently. It shows the Government's commitment to improving the contribution that the law can make to road casualty reduction. Legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time can be found for the major package of reforms. There are some details outside the North committee report on which the Home Office is still expecting responses to its consultations about some police powers.
We need to recognise that it is not legislation that has brought about the dramatic reduction in road casualties in this country. Legislation can contribute but the major change has been a new culture on the roads in which people expect co-operation, care and courtesy and in which people recognise that we all make mistakes and that room must be made for the mistakes of others.
My hon. Friends who have spoken on behalf of motor cyclists rightly said that they are more vulnerable than others, are involved in crashes more often and that the consequences of each crash are worse for them. We should all try to remember that pedestrians and motor cyclists are human beings. Because we are in a one tonne steel vest—a motor car—whether we are commuting or using it as a sales representative or an engineer, we must not forget that we share the responsibility for those more vulnerable than ourselves.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked about the time scale for some of the other measures mentioned in the motor cycle safety package. We hope to announce decisions shortly on some of the other elements. We have done the best we can to bear in mind the views and responses we have received. The Motorcycle Action Group has done a great deal to promote defensive riding techniques and it concentrates on important issues. However, I am not sure that it is necessary for the group to advertise a
Loadsatrouble (Riders' Rights Day) T-shirt—as worn by your Transport Minister! Still available. Black on Grey only. £4·99 plus 30p postage and packing.
It is available from PO Box 750, Birmingham, B30 3BA.
The serious point made by Mag News on defensive riding techniques is that the road user, who is often at fault—not always—usually manages to pick on an inexperienced motor cyclist with whom to tangle. The ratio of risk for motor cyclists up to the age of 20 used to be 20 times as great as for motor cyclists aged 25-plus—that describes my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling)—and it is now a ratio of 13:1. Therefore, there has been an improvement in safety for the younger motor cyclist. That is important, but the risk is still too great and must be reduced.
I can give an illustration of the importance of training. Research shows that three quarters of motor cyclists do not use their front brake for straight line braking. That is perhaps the biggest single mistake we are making and it shows that the training has not been adopted into the habits and practices of motor cyclists. It also demonstrates the importance of initial basic training so that we do not simply rely on someone's experience as a cyclist. We need them to understand that motorised two-wheel movement—mopeds and motor cycles—is different. It is important to keep what is good about motor cycling rather than to accept that it should be eliminated. No one wants that to happen. I would be happy to see much more motor cycling—there used to be more in the past—as long as the casualty rate keeps coming down. That is the real test for motor cycling.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked about the motor cycle training course fee. It is important to realise that we are not necessarily talking about compulsory basic training as a one-day course or any other fixed format. We want to ensure that people become competent as soon as possible. Some may be able to do that in a day but others may take longer and some may want to train in a collection of hours put together. However, that is not for us to dictate


immediately. There may be a range of provisions. We do not have a preconceived idea of what the course fee is likely to be. We hope that it will not be necessary to fix a fee. The powers given by clause 6 are to safeguard the position of trainees so that they will not be faced with exorbitant charges.
We hope that training organisations will offer full packages of training of which the basic element is only one part. It is important that people taking up motor cycling should realise that it will not be a matter of, "Come and see us for a day and then do not bother to come back until the end of the time during which you can ride on your L-plates." It is better to follow the line taken by motor cycle retailers, manufacturers, training organisations and riders groups who say, rightly, that if one is to take up motor cycling, one should have full training in order to gain experience and skill with good instructors and experienced motor cyclists. I pay tribute to many in the police, road safety organisations and other groups who give their time to provide that training for new motor cyclists.
The hon. Member for Deptford also asked whether there would be enough training sites to meet demand. That point was rightly picked up on behalf of the rural interests by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. There are now 190 different organisations authorised to provide training and the part 1 test. They operate from over 900 approved sites throughout Great Britain and employ more than 4,000 instructors. If all those training sites and instructors were to operate the new compulsory basic training, there would be enough to cope with likely demand. We are currently conducting a survey through local authority road safety officers to find out how many instructors are based at each site, whether training machines are available and to discover the current and potential throughput of trainees. The survey will identify approved sites which are not currently being used and parts of the country that are not well served by training facilities. In those areas, local motor cycle dealers may have a role to play in providing training facilities if they wish to continue to sell learner machines.
As assurance was given in the other place that the scheme will not be introduced until adequate facilities exist. I am happy to repeat that assurance now. We will take full account of the special problems of rural areas. I do not want to be led into giving too full an assurance that exemptions will be given simply on grounds of distance. We would need to find a way to overcome that problem. It is important to obtain safety for new motor cyclists whether they live in rural or built up areas. We need to recognise the widespread nature of the population and the absence of a town or city in which one could obtain a good throughput of trainees on a regular basis.
I was asked about the monitoring of standards of motor cycle instruction. The Department is already responsible for the appointment of training bodies and those who sign part 1 test certificates. The Motor Cycle Association—I pay tribute to its work in discussing the proposals—has made tentative proposals to set up a body to monitor and train the training instructors. I expect to meet the director general of the MCA on 3 May to discuss training and I hope to hear the MCA's proposition. I would not want to

prejudge the reaction to the proposals until I hear from the experts how they think we should move forward. We want to move forward together.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) made the important point that motor cyclists could experience the course and demonstrate to the instructor, rather than the examiner—that is a better way of putting it—that he cannot ride safely. Trainees would successfully complete their basic training only if they demonstrate that they are able to ride unsupervised. I do not want people to believe that we are substituting a new test. We simply want people to demonstrate that they can ride competently. I may be splitting hairs, but that is not supposed to be seen as a test. Hopefully, trainees will accept that they should go on to further training and try to pass the proper test as soon as they reasonably can. The days are gone when people should expect to ride around on L-plates year after year without having to ride a motor cycle under an examiner's eyes for half an hour or more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley also mentioned lorry and bus licensing and many hon. Members have made the same points. We are trying to bring lorry and bus licensing into line. The first full licence will run to the age of 45 and renewals for professional drivers will be every five years until the age of 65. Thereafter, an annual renewal will be needed. Medical reports will be required on each application. The medical profession generally agrees that the mid-forties is the time when serious medical conditions begin to appear. The incidence of medical conditions affecting drivers aged between 18 and 45 is small. That assertion is borne out by the cases coming before the medical advisers at Swansea. In reaching decisions on the fitness of applicants the Secretary of State will be guided by advice published by medical experts as well as by the honorary medical panels.
The hon. Member for Deptford raised the issue of compensation for time lost at work because of more frequent medical checks. I want to take this opportunity of reminding every licence holder that it states on every licence, whether it is a green or a pink licence:
You are required to tell the Drivers Medical Branch, DVLC, Swansea, SA1 1TU at once if you have any disability (includes any physical or medical condition) which affects (or may in the future affect) your fitness as a driver if you expect it to last more than 3 months.
That is an obligation on each of us.
I welcome the fact that many drivers notify Swansea. They are not always disqualified if they raise a question. In fact, it provides an assurance for the driver just as much as for anybody else. I suspect that many elderly people who notify Swansea of an eyesight or other medical condition are pleasantly surprised when they discover that they can continue driving. They may be subject to continued regular medical checks, but this is an assurance for the driver as well as for the rest of us. So people should not be worried about notifying conditions to Swansea. They certainly will be committing an offence if they hide a condition that should be notified.
We realise that some people in professional driving are worried about the possibility that they may have to give up driving midway in their career. The medical standards are applied to protect other road users from the consequences of collapse at the wheel of bus, lorry or other large-vehicle drivers. It is important that drivers who are not able to meet the standards do not drive such vehicles.
The provision of compensation is not a matter for Government; it has to be worked out through normal employer-employee relationships.
Drivers whose work depends on meeting certain strict health standards may also insure against unexpected deterioration in their health. It is important to recognise that this applies equally to someone who may be a service engineer or a sales person in that their job may depend upon having a driving licence. People should have the opportunity of anticipating whether their health will determine their work, and it is well worth considering insurance and, in organised groups, seeing if that can be part of negotiated contracts of employment. Otherwise individuals can do it.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked about appeals. The vast majority of reconsidered decisions are decisions taken on medical grounds and the medical adviser is the best person to apply the standards in individual cases. The courts are the most appropriate appeal forum in general. They are in the best position to give the necessary weight to additional factors that may be introduced. The ordinary licence holder has no reconsideration procedure. There is no indication that this has resulted in any unfairness, although, as I have said, the loss of an ordinary licence can be just as severe for those who depend on cars for their livelihood as the loss of a vocational licence can be to a lorry or bus driver.
The driver licensing systems and judicial processes in other European Community member states are quite different. We shall be looking closely at their arrangements.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked again, as she did on Tuesday, about the staff implications of the transfer to the DVLC in Swansea and the effect on the speed of service. Vocational licences are currently issued manually by staff in traffic area offices. When these licences are issued in Swansea it will be through the fully computerised facilities there. By replacing a manual licensing system by a computerised system and unifying vocational and ordinary driver licensing within a single system, with the economies of scale at Swansea, we shall both save staff and improve the quality of service. There may well be some increase of staff at Swansea.
The staff and administrative savings have been estimated at about £1 million a year. The turn-round times for dealing with lorry and bus driving licence transactions will be speeded up by about 40 per cent. or more. So we ought to get both a more efficient system and one that provides more advantages to the person applying for a licence or a variation of one.
I turn now to the autoguide system. The hon. Member for Deptford asked whether this would lead to rat-running. I believe that it will lead to a reduction in rat-running because often many of the rats are continuing to move but are taking longer to get to their destination. It is important that the designated roads, the main roads, are the ones that carry the through traffic. I have given strong support over the years to traffic management arrangements, whether they involve physical restraints or efforts to ease the junctions which at present encourage rat-running. That is why we have in London designated roads and some trunk roads. We want to make sure that there are not changes which lead to greater chances of rat-running.
There is no reason to think that autoguide will increase the overall volume of traffic. The main roads generally

offer quicker journey times and certainly should. The proposed large-scale pilot autoguide system will allow local authorities, the police and the Department to evaluate in detail the likely effects of a commercial system, including the effects upon minor roads. The Secretary of State would be able to impose licence conditions about the roads on to which the system could direct traffic. This power is in clause 10(8)(b).
It is quite important not to set down in advance that local authorities should be able to have a veto. When the hon. Member for Deptford was talking about integrated transport authorities, I was reminded of the county London Plan 1943, the Bressey report 1938 and "History of the London County Council 1889–1939", by Gibbon and Bell. From those we see that it was local authorities that banned the expansion of the trolley bus system in London because they did not want to see overhead wires. We must regret those decisions; it would have been nice to see an expansion of the trolley bus system.
It is important that we get the experience of the pilot autoguide system. Then we shall have better information on whether my assertion is right that we should end up with less rat-running, or whether the fears which the hon. Lady has quite rightly expressed are justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) raised the question of the private sector and whether the Secretary of State would use his powers. We hope that he will not have to use his powers, but we have to make provision in legislation to cover eventualities. Some of us may remember the little difficulty we had on Friday in getting the cashless parking Bill through. That was to provide primary legislative cover for local authorities to charge for off-street car parks without using cash. It would be ridiculous to lose this opportunity of giving the Secretary of State the necessary powers, but we hope it will not be necessary for them to be used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and also, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked questions about clause 10 and the conditions which the Secretary of State might seek to include in licences for the operation of autoguide and other systems. As I have said, we hope that it will not be necessary to use these powers.
The hon. Member for Deptford asked about the effect of autoguide and similar systems on road safety. It is quite plain that if people know where they are driving—this applies to autoguide as well as to conventional signing and to the digital radio system to which reference has been made—they get there more quickly and by a shorter route and do not have to cover unnecessary parts of the route. That reduces the exposure to risk. It also means that they can concentrate on their driving instead of wondering whether they are going in the right direction. So all the ways of improving signing are important, including variable message signs on motorways, the BBC's radio data system and a review of the traffic signs regulations.
I mentioned that 1989 is the year of the sign. We reissued our little booklet and also a traffic advisory unit guide to road signs last week in Brighton at an exhibition. We are making major moves forward. Anyone who wants can go and look at the demonstration sign project in Guildford or the A3 signing which is coming forward and will see some of the improvements. We hope shortly to announce new ideas for signing in London and autoguide will fit in with the system, subject to Parliament. I ought to say perhaps that as a result of the agricultural crisis we


have changed the name of the illustrative motorway service area from "Good Egg" to "Good Food", in order to keep up with the times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) has reminded us again of his enthusiasm for a London traffic management unit. At the moment we have organised control of the traffic system. In King's building we have the Metropolitan police with their supervision. My hon. Friend has made various suggestions following up his Adjournment debate in December and more recently there have been reports in the papers of steeper parking fines, red lines on important routes and better parking enforcement generally. All this has been very much welcomed—except by those who have been caught. I met a group of bus and coach operators this morning who also mentioned my hon. Friend's proposals.
The hon. Member for Deptford talked about autoguides and Berlin. Berlin is a scientist's dream. There is no commuting traffic; people cannot drive in from the suburbs. The traffic management arrangement is significantly different from London's. We shall continue with the close Anglo-German co-operation.
There is much support in Europe for the British approach, which places the investment responsibility with the private sector and control and licensing in the public sector with the Secretary of State.
I will finish by referring to the eyesight point. Most of the people who have the highest involvement in injury accidents have the best eyesight. The problem in general is not people's quality of vision but the processing of the information they get through their eyes. It can be befuddled by drink or misguided by youth and inexperience. I can see that the hon. Lady does not agree with me. Perhaps we had better have another meeting with the college of opthalmologists—if that is the appropriate group—and see if we can find scientific evidence from this country or other countries showing that eyesight makes a major contribution. I suspect that if one could get younger drivers to see a psychiatrist one would be able to spot the ones who will have real trouble.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham referred to motorists from other European countries and that is a point that we can perhaps take forward. As I said on Tuesday, there is no provision for endorsing foreigners' licences. Most countries do not have that kind of system.

People in many more countries are interested in our systems and are going to Swansea to see how they work. In time, the European Community may move forward to our system, so that people cannot wantonly commit offences in other countries. However, courts have power to seize the licences of foreign drivers when they commit serious offences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley talked about light goods vehicles. That point follows the consideration of minibus driver licensing as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham talked about the format and durability of drivers' licences. We think that they are reasonably good, but we will see whether we can improve the plastic wallets for licences.
Having heard hon. Members' comments, I welcome the general support for both parts of the Bill. Whether we are concerned with the future of motor cycling, of autoguide or the other provisions, I hope that we can move forward and increase safety and provide a better service for those who use the roads.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVER LICENSING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS) BILL [Lords] [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVER LICENSING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS) BILL [Lords] [Ways and Means]

Resolved,
That any Act resulting from the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords] may—

(a) authorise the inclusion in licences for operating driver information systems of terms requiring the rendering of payments to the Secretary of State; and
(b) provide for the payment of those and other sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Orders of the Day — Atomic Energy Bill [Lords]

[Relevant document: Third Report of the Energy Committee of Session 1988–89 on British Nuclear Fuels plc: Report and Accounts 1987–88 (HC 50).]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
A prime purpose of the Bill, defined in clause 1, is to raise the financial limit imposed on British Nuclear Fuels plc by the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Acts of 1977 and 1981. The limit is currently set at £1,500 million, and clause 1 proposes that it should be increased to £2,000 million.
The financial limit consists of payments for shares in the company, the principal on outstanding Government loans to BNFL, and the guarantees given by the Government in support of BNFL's borrowing from commercial sources. We need to raise the limit so that BNFL can borrow with Government guarantees the sums required to complete its current investment programme.
To keep its place in the forefront of the nuclear fuel cycle industry, BNFL must invest for the future, and it has in hand a massive capital programme amounting to more than £5 billion to the end of the century, mainly in support of its waste management and reprocessing business at Sellafield.
The company raises its finance in the private sector, backed by Government guarantee, and under successive Governments has been classified as a private sector body for public expenditure purposes. Its borrowing is therefore not part of the public sector borrowing requirement. Guarantees are issued only for specific loans, and each application for a loan guarantee is scrutinised by the Department of Energy, the Treasury and the Bank of England before we agree to accept the liability.
BNFL expects to breach the existing statutory limit in 1990. As acknowledged yesterday by the Energy Select Committee, the main reason for this is BNFL's need to finance, up to 1992, £500 million worth of extensions and improvements to the low active waste treatment plants at Sellafield. Those plants ensure that active effluent discharges are kept as low as reasonably practicable. Radiological effluent is already less than 5 per cent. of what it was in 1978, and with this further expenditure should be reduced to near zero by the mid-1990s. Expenditure on the scale required to achieve that level was not envisaged when the current limit was set in 1981.
It is expected that BNFL's total borrowings will peak at around £1,700 million over the next four years, provided that all present income projections are realised. In the mid-1990s, as the plants now being built come on stream and start to generate funds, BNFL expects to have sufficient funds available internally to meet its capital expenditure requirements and progressively to pay off its borrowings.
BNFL has been consistently profitable since its inception, and has provided the Government, as shareholder, with a dividend for the past 12 years. In 1987–88, the dividend payment amounted to £36 million. There is no current expectation, therefore, that we would need to seek any further increases in the limit.
Clause 2 of the Bill will enable the costs of nuclear safety research which the Health and Safety Commission

sponsors to be recovered from nuclear site licensees and licence applicants. The House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Energy announced last year that the role of customer for much of the safety research currently sponsored by his Department would be transferred to the Health and Safety Commission as from 1 April 1990. That will enable the commission to ensure the future adequacy and balance of nuclear safety research programmes. The programmes will be managed by the Health and Safety Executive on the commission's behalf.
The principal objectives which the commission will be asked to fulfil will be set out in agreed guidelines provided by the Secretary of State for Energy. The commission will be charged with ensuring that adequate and balanced nuclear safety research programmes continue to be carried out, and that the results of the research are disseminated to maximise their contribution to safety. This will, of course, require the commission to maintain close collaboration with the nuclear industry and the UKAEA so as to be fully aware of what safety-related work the industry is doing on its own account. The commission is establishing machinery to do that.
The commission will, however, also need to sponsor research on its own account to ensure that the totality of research is adequate and it will need to see to it that a sufficient independent nuclear safety research capacity is maintained.
The present cost of the research being transferred is about £20 million per year. The effect of the transfer will therefore be to reduce Government expenditure by that amount. Clause 2 will enable the Health and Safety Executive to recover the costs which it incurs in connection with its licensing function from nuclear site licensees and applicants for licences.
Costs relating to a licence application are not at present recoverable until a licence is granted, and cannot be recovered at all if the application is refused or withdrawn. The new provisions will enable the Health and Safety Executive to recover its costs before, and whether or not, a licence is granted.
Clauses 3 and 4 make technical amendments to the rules on insurance cover for meeting third-party compensation claims in the event of nuclear incidents. Section 18 of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 sets out the method for determining the maximum contribution which the Government might make towards meeting the cost of compensation claims. Factors which have to be taken into account are those amounts which are available from nuclear operators' insurance arrangements, and any contributions which may be available from other Governments under relevant international conventions.
At present the UKAEA, because of its position as a public sector body, is not required to cover its liabilities by commercial insurance arrangements. However, following the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1986, the authority's operations are now being undertaken on a more commercial "trading fund" basis, and occasions may arise—for instance, when a trading partner is involved—when commercial insurance is considered a more attractive option than the self-insurance which is normal for Government bodies. This clause will remove any doubt which might exist about whether funds available from any such commercial insurance should be taken into account when computing the Government's contribution. It also removes any possible doubt about whether insurers would have a liability to pay.
Clause 4 is designed to overcome an unintended defect which has come to light in the drafting of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. It will avoid the need for new insurance cover to be taken out when a new nuclear site licence has to be issued for purely technical reasons—for instance, where the boundaries of an existing site are extended.
Clause 5 makes the necessary changes to our domestic law to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the international convention on assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency, widely known as the mutual assistance convention. That is one of two conventions negotiated under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency following the accident at Chernobyl. The other relates to early notification.
We need to make no changes to the law in respect of the early notification convention, but we intend to ratify both conventions at the same time. The Government have already agreed to act as though bound by the two conventions.
Before ratification of the mutual assistance convention, two changes to our domestic legislation are required. Clause 5 makes the necessary financial provision to enable payments to be made in the event of the United Kingdom responding to a request for assistance and to receive payments if we decide to seek the reimbursement provided for in the convention. It also provides the necessary cover for affording certain privileges and immunities to persons from a state which is providing assistance. The United Kingdom was one of the first signatories to those conventions, which have been in force for some time. It is important that we should be able to ratify them as soon as possible, and the provisions of clause 5 will enable us to do that.
This is a largely technical but nevertheless important Bill. I have made my opening remarks about it essentially factual, but I will answer any points that hon. Members wish to raise if, with the leave of the House, I speak again at the end of the debate.
I should make two comments about the report of the Energy Select Committee which was published yesterday and which Mr. Speaker has ruled is debatable today. The first concerns the question of BNFL's costs. The Committee's report focuses attention on the eightfold increase in costs at the low level disposal site at Drigg. That has been interpreted by some commentators as a general criticism of cost control at BNFL. Clearly, that is a misinterpretation of the facts put forward by the Committee. The Government believe that a privatised electricity industry, in which nuclear costs in particular will be much more clearly exposed, will motivate BNFL further to improve its cost controls, especially as the switch is made from cost plus to fixed price contracts.
Secondly, I believe that the Committee has been grossly misrepresented on the question of the dumping of foreign nuclear waste from the pre-1976 contracts. All contracts for the reprocessing of spent fuel signed after 1976 are subject to clauses requiring the return of waste to the countries of origin. Reports in the press have talked today of 1,500 tonnes of waste from the pre-1976 contracts requiring storage in this country. That has resulted from a

misreading of the Committee's report. In fact, the 1,500 tonnes is spent fuel, 97 per cent. of which is recovered in the form of plutonium and uranium.
About 100 cubic metres, or two bus loads, of high level waste—rather different from 1,500 tonnes—will arise from that reprocessing, which is a small portion of the total waste arising up to the year 2000. All contracts signed since 1976—in particular the vast majority of the £2 billion worth of business signed up with the Japanese, which makes THORP the largest earner of yen in the country—require the repatriation of waste.
Should the House wish me to do so, I will elaborate further on the Government's initial views on the Select Committee report.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I thank the Minister for explaining the provisions of what appears to be an innocuous Bill. As he said, they are designed primarily to raise the borrowing limits of British Nuclear Fuels plc, to tidy up current legislation and to bring us into line with Europe so that we may comply with the convention to which he referred. Opposition Members have no wish to oppose any of those aims. Indeed, from the point of view of the convention and the tidying up of current legislation, we regard the Bill as a step forward.
We applaud the timing of the Bill, for two reasons. First, the measure relates to the privatisation of the electricity supply industry; secondly, it forces us to reiterate many of the doubts that were raised in the report of the Select Committee on Energy which was published yesterday and which Mr. Speaker has ruled is relevant to this debate.
We are told that the borrowing limits must be increased to finance the completion of THORP, the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria. The history of that construction, like that of much of the nuclear power industry, is littered with increases in costs and time scales.
When permission was first granted for the THORP plant in 1978, it was to take nine years to complete, at a cost of £300 million. By 1983, the time scale had been extended to 12 years and the cost to £1·2 billion. By the beginning of this year, the start-up was expected to take place 14 years after permission was first granted, at a cost of £1·1 billion more than the first estimate of £300 million. There has been a truly incredible increase in capital cost and time scale. Some, if not all, of those additional costs have occurred as a result of the nuclear installations inspectorate having examined the original plans and decided—presumably because of lessons that were learned about the nuclear industry—that it was necessary to alter the plans substantially.
While all that has been going on, the cost of reprocessing oxide fuels has risen sharply. As a result, there will be an operating loss, certainly on the earliest contracts that were made on a fixed cost basis, a subject to which the Minister referred and to which I will return. May we be told how much the loss is likely to be on those early fixed-price contracts? Who will shoulder the burden of that loss—BNFL, as a result of this measure, or the taxpayer?
BNFL reports that the cost of the construction of THORP will be recouped by about the year 2000, taking into account the early contracts that were signed with the British nuclear industry and some foreign companies.


What the future holds, after those contracts have been completed, one cannot say. After all, the reprocessing plant has a potential life of 25 years. The potential for acquiring contracts after those already signed have expired is questionable because, by that time, there will be continental reprocessing plants bidding in competition. It is clear that, at that stage, BNFL will not be seen as the only organisation capable of handling nuclear waste. Clearly, a number of question marks hang over the future of the reprocessing plant.
In the home market, the CEGB—which will become National Power if the Government have their way and nuclear generating is handed to the private sector—and the successor company in Scotland to the SSEB suggested, have no contracts for reprocessing. There is also doubt about whether fuel from the AGRs and PWRs to be built at Sizewell and Hinkley should go for reprocessing.
Nobody questions the fact that Magnox waste must be reprocessed because of its dangerous condition and deterioration after its useful life in a reactor. We must therefore take action on it. Whether or not the reprocessing of AGR and PWR fuels will be necessary in the future has been questioned in the Select Committee's report and several times previously by people who are eminent in this subject, who believe that dry storage of such fuels would perhaps be a safer and cleaner way of handling them once they have come to the end of their useful lives in nuclear reactors.
The market to which reprocessing was to sell its plutonium—the fast breeder reactor market—has currently been suspended by the Government. No doubt the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will want to mention that later. It was envisaged that THORP might be a place where fuel could be prepared for the fast breeder reactors, and not just in this country—we do not limit ourselves—because we might have found a market elsewhere in the world. Although it was envisaged that THORP might have played a useful role, the report has brought that into question.
The world price of uranium is lower than the cost of reprocessing recycled uranium, and is likely to remain so. The report also highlighted the fact that, in the past decade, there has not been the increase that people thought there might have been in the cost of uranium. Although the availability of that type of fuel can be limited, at the moment it is still plentiful on the market and hence there has been only a reasonable increase in its cost, which is not as excessive as that of some other fuels.
As the Select Committee report states:
The public perception of the safety record of BNFL and the well-known difficulties here and abroad of accounting accurately for plutonium stocks have not helped the environmental case for reprocessing.
It is interesting that the Minister has said that his Department has scrutinised each and every contract entered into by BNFL. One would think that that is only right because the Government are the only shareholder of the company, but if there has been scrutiny at the level that the Minister suggested we must question why we have not had any proper explanation about increasing the cost of the THORP project.
More importantly, there is also a question mark over the further use of THORP because the first contracts that were signed on what, until the debate started, we were led to believe was a cost-plus basis have ended and, over their time scale, have presumably paid for all the extra expenses

involved in the construction of THORP. As we are being asked to grant permission for BNFL to borrow more money, it is only right that we ask the Government to justify their already massive investment and that involved in their future plans, especially in view of what I have said about the likely use of the THORP project.
The experience of THORP does not bode well for the planned large-scale thermal mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility that is currently being contracted and built at THORP. From the Select Committee report, we understand that neither the CEGB nor, presumably, its successor, which will comprise the same people in the same business—National Power—nor the SSEB, nor its successor in the Scottish nuclear power industry, has any plans at this stage to use the mixed oxide fuel, which is also known by the abbreviation of MOX. While BNFL says that there will be a price advantage over conventional fuel, the electricity generating companies say that there will not. The fact is that £50 million may seem a small amount now but that money is currently being expended and, as the report rightly points out, there is some doubt about whether the project will produce fuel for the nuclear electricity market in years to come.
As the report stated, perhaps the Government will assess who is correct before the proposals are advanced. That point is worthy of an answer at a later stage in our proceedings on the Bill, if not tonight. I think that we shall wish to take the Bill into Committee, perhaps for just a short time. Hon. Members who served on the Committee on the Electricity Bill will he pleased to know that. Nevertheless, the report has highlighted many questions that need answering and I hope we shall receive answers to them.
Perhaps there will be an opportunity for the Minister to tell us who is to take over the ownership of the stocks of plutonium and whether the private sector electricity companies will police that. In our earlier debates on the Electricity Bill, I used the phrase, "selling off the family plutonium". Without question this important issue concerns many people.
I am sure that people are well aware of the trade in weapons-grade plutonium throughout the world. If we can believe much of the international debate, many countries that we, as a country, feel are unstable are handling such fuels. We have heard on several occasions that publicly owned or part publicly owned companies have not always been too good at handling weapons-grade plutonium. Indeed, we are led to believe that it has left these and other shores that are supposed to be responsible when handling it and that it has ended up on shores which we may not like to be used as a basic material for nuclear weapons. We are concerned about that, and this debate gives the Minister an opportunity to tell us what the Government envisage will happen in the new framework.
That issue also begs the question of some of the strong rumours that we have heard, that BNFL itself may be a candidate for privatisation in the years ahead. If the present ideology continues, perhaps the only thing that is likely to be saved from privatisation is the air that we breathe—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps the Government are considering it, because the Minister is nodding his head. As some of the people who currently advise the Government probably are considering it, we shall have to wait and see what happens. If BNFL were to go into the private sector, that would again raise the question of


exactly who will look after plutonium in the future. We hope to hear one or two comments from the Minister on that at some stage.
As the Select Committee report stated, it seems that the Government have maintained
the profitability of BNFL, a Government-owned plc, but
reduced
greatly the profitability of the public corporations which the Government is about to privatise.
The Minister will remember the famous draft letter of January—one of many to which we referred in our proceedings on the Electricity Bill—written by Mr. John Baker, the chief executive-designate of National Power, who had grave concerns about privatised nuclear electricity generation and about who would have to pick up what has become, week by week, a growing and expensive bill. That fact was highlighted in the Select Committee's report. Back in January, in the letter that was drafted but not sent, Mr. Baker warned the Government that the flotation of National Power was at risk and that one of the reasons for that was the prices charged by BNFL for the nuclear fuel cycle.
Mr. Baker stated:
we do not see how National Power with an arms length contract with BNFL is in any position to put additional incentives on BNFL…if HMG as its shareholder cannot.
It appears that Mr. Baker won the argument at the time. At least, we can assume that, because we have not had a statement from the Government. However, on 23 March, The Guardian stated:
The Government signalled its willingness to provide a nuclear indemnity after ministers were told that financial institutions would not invest in a venture with as many financial uncertainties as nuclear power.
Therefore, if, according to Mr. Baker, the newly privatised National Power is only to meet the costs of nuclear power which, as The Guardian put it, are "within management control", what will be the status of its contracts with BNFL?
At the moment, contracts are made on a "cost unknown" basis at the time of signing. Have those contracts been renegotiated as the CEGB and the SSEB have wanted for a considerable number of years? If so, what effect will that have on the reprocessing plant at Sellafield? If those contracts have been renegotiated, how much will the Government give BNFL to buy out the existing contracts? That is very important, because someone will have to pay if the cost-plus contracts are being bought out.
People interested in the nuclear industry, and British taxpayers, will want to know how the change in cost-plus contracts will take place. If they have been renegotiated, are the Government content to see the contracts continue under their present terms? I understand that the overseas contracts have also been made on a cost-plus basis. Will there be a change in the British element in THORP, but no change in the foreign element? The Bill gives us an opportunity to debate those matters and seek answers to those questions.
If we give the Bill a Second Reading, we should also scrutinise the process which has been established for the costs of decommissioning. BNFL's customers' liability for BNFL decommissioning costs has risen more than fivefold despite a 58 per cent. reduction in the present value of the total liability by the use of a 2 per cent. a year discount.

However, that is based on present prices. By the time decommissioning takes place, depending on when the very expensive third phase is finished, the costs are bound to have risen considerably. The history of the nuclear industry suggests that that will happen and that back-end costs are likely to rise in the same way as front-end costs have risen.
We can only assume that BNFL is postponing decommissioning to avoid the costs today. By putting off for 100 years the non-productive high cost end of the nuclear fuel cycle, BNFL reduces the cost for its customers today.
I hope that the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), who was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy which sought oral evidence from BNFL in November last year, will be able to clarify a point for me. I believe that it was the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) who asked Mr. Neville Chamberlain a question, part of which was:
Since the nuclear industry has always claimed that decommissioning presents no technical or safety problems, could you perhaps take this opportunity of reassuring the Committee that this delay is not designed to boost short-term profits?
Mr. Chamberlain replied:
We can certainly give the assurance that it is designed to boost short-term profits.
There may be a printing error in that memorandum to the Select Committee. For the year under consideraton, there would have been a difference in terms of annual profits involving £14 million. If BNFL believes that spreading decommissioning over a long period helps its annual costs, we can assume that the CEGB and the SSEB—and presumably National Power—are thinking along the same lines. Their policy will be much the same.
My next points relate to the Electricity Bill, which has just completed its Report stage in this House. The Select Committee on Energy and many other people have suggested that the time scale for decommissioning may be brought forward, while Mr. Chamberlain has said that the time scale is an important accountancy factor. Bearing those two points in mind, schedule 12 to the Electricity Bill might be triggered.
In Standing Committee, when we debated clause 88, we asked how the money in schedule 12, which is not Government money, as the Prime Minister often tells us, but taxpayers' money, involving billions of pounds, could be triggered for use in the nuclear industry if the regulatory body or the Government decided to change the time scale.
Mr. John Baker's draft letter revealed his deep unhappiness at having to buy the nuclear part of electricity generation along with a substantial tranche of fossil fuel plants. If Mr. Baker is now satisfied that he will not incur any additional costs, has his satisfaction been gained through the possible use of the triggering of schedule 12 of the Electricity Bill? Has that trigger made Mr. Baker happy about taking on board the nuclear industry, because he was deeply unhappy about it last January? Post-privatisation—in a few years' time—will there be a change in the time scale for decommissioning? Will that trigger schedule 12 and bring taxpayers' money into this very expensive nuclear industry to satisfy the people who will take it over?
We welcome certain aspects of the Bill. We welcome the involvement of the Health and Safety Executive with the nuclear installations inspectorate and the United


Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Hopefully, that will improve people's perception of nuclear safety. Obviously, spreading the financial responsibilities is welcome.
We welcome clauses 3 and 4, which relate to insurance cover. We assume that the proposals are the right way to proceed, although we hope that the provisions are never put to the test. However, we never know with this industry. There are large questions marks hanging over the nuclear industry, although thankfully not because of anything which has happened on a large scale in this country. But there are questions about liability should a major incident arise on the scale of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.
Clause 5 provides that the mutual assistance convention should be ratified. While the Opposition are pleased about that, we hope that it is not undermined in a way that was described in The Independent today. A civil servant was giving evidence to the Select Committee on Defence yesterday about the scuttling of nuclear submarines. I think that "scuttling" is the correct term, and I should know because my father served in the Navy for a considerable time during the war. I had understood that the London dumping convention to protect the environment would cover such scuttling and the Government claimed that the signing of that convention was a victory and a major step towards cleaning the world's environment.
However, Mr. Nigel Paren, a senior MOD official, is quoted in The Independent as saying:
The Royal Navy's decommissioned nuclear submarines could be dumped at sea, despite the international convention against sea-disposal of vessels and harmful waste.
If that is the case, I hope that, as soon as the convention in clause 5 is ratified, the Minister will tell all his civil servants exactly what that means. I hope that the convention will never need to be used, but these plans need to be made in case there are more incidents of the type that we saw in America and the USSR. I hope that the Government have a strong commitment to the convention. I shall be interested to see how our nuclear submarines are removed. I understand that one of them is in dry dock.
I hope that the Minister will attempt to answer my questions either during the debate or later in Committee, because these issues are important for the industry and the British taxpayer. Our electricity generating industry and BNFL have been in public hands and perhaps that means that things are not as transparent as they will be in future.
No matter what happens in future, we are talking about considerable nuclear costs. All the rights given by the Government to BNFL to borrow more money should be accompanied by instructions to use the money in a proper way. Whether or not we build new generators, Britain's nuclear industry will be with us for decades. We must make sure that it is soundly based and that investment in it is for good reasons. We must not invest in forms of technology that do not have a useful life. It is not our intention to move against the Bill, but perhaps we shall discuss it at greater length in Committee. We support much of the Bill, but some of it begs many questions.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Once again, when one surveys the vast expanse of naked green on both sides of the House, one realises that when the House is tempted to discuss technical matters it is rather inclined to rear like a temperamental horse overtaken by an unsilenced motor

car in a country lane. Perhaps that is not surprising in view of the many technical terms and facts in the Bill and the issues surrounding it. I shall come to that.
I know that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (M r. Barron) prides himself on two apprenticeships that he served in the energy industry. The one in which he probably takes the most pride was his experience as a coal miner. The second, in which I hope he takes some pride, was his service for a time on the Select Committee on Energy on which we were very glad to have him. I was, therefore, pleased to hear him say at the end of his speech that he accepted the undoubted fact that the nuclear industry will be with us, and probably worldwide, for a long time. If some of the preliminary evidence that we have seen on the greenhouse effect, not only in this country but in virtually all the major industrial countries that are examining this issue, proves to be what is suggested, it looks as if there could be a dramatic and major expansion of the nuclear industry.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy for raising the two points on which he thought my Committee had been misrepresented. I accept without hesitation or qualification that we were rather misrepresented on the question of the so-called dumping of nuclear waste. That is a highly emotive phrase. and unfortunately when it appears in any Government document or Select Committee report it tends to be the first thing that the press seizes on because I think that i t shares the rather limited public perception of what exactly is meant by the results of the reprocessing of all kinds of nuclear materials.
I cannot go all the way with my hon. Friend the Minister on costs. He suggested that my Committee made an innocent—I think that was the word he used—misinterpretation of the situation at Drigg. That may or may not be so, but later I intend to deal with cost increases that my Committee and I regarded as serious matters. In a sense, the discussion on the Bill, which will increase the borrowing limits of BNFL by £500 million, is purely financial and technical. However, it raises much larger problems and graver issues.
The task of the Select Committee on Energy is to examine annually the major energy industries in the public sector. Our report was both relevant and timely, although I concede and fully understand the dismay that it may have caused to British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. I have the greatest respect for BNFL both as a company and an organisation and for what it is trying to do in and for Britain. I have also the greatest respect for its management. However, if I cannot escape the obligation of scrutiny, BNFL cannot: escape its consequences.
To some extent, both the Committee and BNFL were the victims of tendentious selection in the way that our results were presented. For example, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, it has apparently been widely reported in the press that the Committee recommended the renegotiation of contracts. We did not do that at all. What we said was carefully considered. We said that we would strongly favour a recommendation that BNFL should renegotiate those contracts "were that practical." That phrase was quite deliberately inserted. We see no prospect of BNFL customers wishing to receive waste when they have entered contracts under which BNFL has undertaken to look at that matter. That is the first and quite serious misrepresentation.
We were told that BNFL has been criticised for accepting contracts that made the United Kingdom a dumping ground for nuclear waste. The Committee strongly supports what BNFL is doing and believes that it is doing it well. There are some aspects of costs, with which I shall later deal, but BNFL's technical capacity is undoubted. We understand that it is immensely profitable for BNFL and for the United Kingdom for BNFL to do this work. However, we call, I think with some justification, for circumspection or caution over contracts that allow the United Kingdom to become, in the words of the Committee,
a repository for waste generated abroad.
That was a deliberately low-key phrase and I emphasise the low-key intention of the Committee in reporting it in that way. The reason for that is that BNFL cannot handle it safely and profitability in the public relations sense if the public perception of all the problems surrounding the storage and proper technical handling of nuclear waste are such that the appropriate solutions cannot be adopted for what has often properly been called the "not in back my backyard" syndrome. That is a powerful syndrome when it comes to dealing with anything in the nuclear industry. It is because this public perception of the risks involved is seriously flawed that the Committee reached the conclusions that it did. We have advised caution.
In terms of radiation we all live on one planet. It is in the interests of the whole human race for nuclear waste to be skilfully handled by those who have the technical competence to do it, and not many have. About three or four major countries can do it and nothing would be more disastrous than to encourage countries that do not have the skills or technologies to set out on their own.
BNFL believes that we have been inaccurate in referring to very large price increases. That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister. BNFL quoted Drigg in its press release this morning. Let us look at the facts. All these are taken either directly from BNFL's evidence or from the evidence that the Committee received from the Central Electricity Generating Board or the South of Scotland electricity board. I shall give the first example by quoting from page 9 of our report.

Mr. Michael Spicer: In my speech I did not in any way criticise the Committee for its interpretation of the facts. I said that it concentrated on particular costs and that people outside then generalised on the Committee's arguments.

Sir Ian Lloyd: I am obliged to my hon. Friend and I accept what he says.
I shall now turn to the specific instances that justify my Committee's conclusions. On page 9 of the report the CEGB evidence suggested that in three specific areas the increases in price over a short period were 129 per cent., 20 per cent. and 27 per cent. On page 34 of our report there is a memorandum from the South of Scotland electricity board which drew attention to another area where the increase was 75 per cent. On page 36 the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in its memorandum gave the amounts that Harwell paid BNFL for the disposal of low-level waste at Drigg. For the year 1985–86 the cost was £26 million, for 1986–87 it was £29 million, for 1987–88 it was £145 million and for 1988–89 it was £260 million. The

percentage increases available from those figures are 10·8 per cent., 388 per cent. and 79 per cent. Those are dramatic increases. On page 37 of the report the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority pointed out that the decommissioning charge for 10 years had been estimated in 1986 at £85 million, but by 1987 it had gone up to £164 million.
I turn to BNFL's own submission to raise much more serious issues. Evidence was taken from BNFL by the Select Committee on 10 December 1986. It estimated the total cost for decommissioning the nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom at £143 million; for Calder Hall and Chapelcross the cost was £30 million per station, and for the CEGB £60 million per station. When we considered the question again in 1987 the CEGB upped its estimate to £330 million and the evidence suggested that the figure lay between, at the most optimistic estimate, £185 million, and, at the most pessimistic, £1,000 million. My Committee recommended that the CEGB clarify its costings.
Meanwhile, roughly at the same time, the Select Committee on the Environment reported. I shall return to that because the inference of its report has been quoted in defence, understandably, by BNFL. BNFL's own figures appear in annex 1 on page 27 of our report. They show that the total liability for decommissioning has grown from £438 million to £4,605 million. Those figures are my major concern. I wish to examine them. The Select Committee has sought, and will be seeking, more information on them.
I should like to give the House a benchmark by which we can perhaps validate my and other judgments on the matter. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development produced an extremely interesting report in 1986 on the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. What comes out of it is an interesting range of costs for decommissioning what one might describe as standard pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors. It is £140 million to £150 million per reactor. The figures are available for anyone who would like to see them.
The most informative analysis, which is also contained in that report, is from the United States, understandably, because that country has the largest civil reactor industry. Therefore, its analysis is most complete. Here we find some extraordinarily interesting information. The surplus facilities management programme of the Department of Energy in the United States plans to decommission 350 nuclear facilities over 20 years from 1986 to 2006 at a cost in total of $1·4 billion, or roughly $4 million per facility. The 1986 United States budget provision for that was a mere $56 million.
There are three other interesting figures. The stabilisation of uranium tailings piles is to cost a total of $745 million, or $30 million per pile. The West Valley reprocessing plant will cost $136 million to decommission. The Shippingport reactor, which is the world's first commercial reactor to be decommissioned, will cost $98 million.
Now I come to a very interesting table which sets out the total picture for the United States. We glean the following facts from the table. There are 77 reactors in a large sample, of which the costs of 65 are known and the costs of 12 are unknown. The total known cost of decommissioning that large amount of nuclear power is estimated at $3·7 billion, or $57 million per reactor. If we take an average of $57 million for each of the 12 plants for which no figures are known, we achieve a total cost for the


whole of this major segment of the United States nuclear industry of $4·42 billion or—I deliberately translate it into sterling—roughly £2·6 billion. That is over the period from 1984 to 2119. It is remarkable that we should even be contemplating anything for 2119 when obviously no one here will have much interest in what is happening. I want to draw the attention of the House to the scale of that: £2·6 billion is roughly the cost of a major new nuclear facility such as Sizewell.
Let us turn to BNFL's figures for the United Kingdom. They have risen from £438 million to £4,605 million. That is a total of $7,800 billion at $1·7 to the pound. Now comes the crucial comparison. Let us consider the size of the respective nuclear industries in the United States and the United Kingdom. Because statistics are so often carefully selected by those who choose to achieve one result or another, I have deliberately taken three bases of comparison—the use of oil equivalent, that is, conversion of nuclear power to oil; megawatts, electric capacity; and terawatt hours. The figures for the first are 124 million tonnes and 11 million tonnes; for the second, 101 million MWe and 14 million MWe; and for the third, 455 TWh and 48·9 TWh.
So the United Kingdom has roughly one tenth of the United States' nuclear capacity and one third of the nuclear capacity which is summarised in the report of the OECD; the decommissioning costs have been estimated at a total of $4·42 billion. That third is now forecast to cost $3·42 billion more than the total estimate for the United States programme, which is three times as great. That is an astonishing figure. It suggests that we are proposing to spend on decommissioning resources of the order of two Sizewells, the Channel tunnel or the Severn barrage. I use those figures to give the House an idea of the scale.
I come now to BNFL'S explanation. It says that it responded to a suggestion made to it by the Select Committee when it appeared before us that it should look more carefully at decommissioning costs. We certainly made that suggestion. BNFL would probably plead in its defence that it took even more seriously two suggestions by the Select Committee on the Environment. That Committee recommended that the industry should do better than the shoestring approach, and then said that the industry should really embrace the concept of a Rolls-Royce solution. It would be very easy to say, "Some shoestring"; I prefer to say, "Some Rolls-Royce".
The whole issue is complex, confused and, because of its scale, alarming. Britain cannot expect to agonise over the budgetary constraints, as we do in virtually every Department of state, and vote almost £4,000 million on the nod of the basis of the information that we have. That is why we must discover much more about the scope and cost of that programme and what raised the estimate by £4 billion.
As my Committee warned, the City's judgment of the whole privatisation procedure is bound to be affected by those figures. How can it be otherwise? Some months ago in the House I warned my right hon. and hon. Friends in the kindest possible way that I suspected that those costs would provide a major obstacle to what I believe they were trying to achieve. I cannot help but conclude that they will prove to be just such a major obstacle.
As to the carriage by air of plutonium, the Select Committee on the Environment made a specific recommendation, which I endorse—particularly after Lockerbie. The Committee stated that that practice should

be prohibited. Has it been prohibited? If not, has the whole question been considered? If it has been considered, what conclusion was reached? My judgment is that if plutonium is to be transported between this country and Japan, or to any other distant part of the globe, the only way that should be done is in a triple-hull, unsinkable ship escorted by a frigate. Even that would present certain dangers.
We are in a sense considering the long-terra implications of our current nuclear industry, which could grow dramatically if, as a consequence of analysis of the greenhouse effect, the developed industrial world—all power-using countries—decides that there must be a significant increase in the use of nuclear power. If that occurs, all the known problems and the whole analysis on which they are based will become dramatically more important.
Public and other misconceptions will arise and grow naturally, and they will often be fed by vested interest groups of one sort or another. Sometimes, the public are fed those misconceptions with great irresponsibility. Nevertheless, those misconceptions must not be allowed to foreclose the nuclear option. That is why we must insist on the most accurate, verifiable information that can possibly be obtained, and that it be made available to the House, where it can be fully discussed. Where there is risk assessment, it must be thorough and realistic. There really is no alternative.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) made an extremely important speech to which the whole House will have listened and, more importantly, will read with great attention. However, it must be said that this occasion is not wholly suitable for considering the wider implications of the Select Committee's important report. It is in a sense unfortunate that the debate follows within 24 hours of the report's publication. That may explain to some extent the phenomenon to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention—the emptiness of the Chamber this evening.
The hon. Member for Havant rested his speech on the frail support of this relatively modest Bill—although one recognises that the terms of the Select Committee's report were specifically allowed by Mr. Speaker, and that is welcome. The hon. Gentleman began his speech by drawing attention to the consensus in all parts of the House that the nuclear industry is here to stay and that, whatever decisions may be taken about the commissioning of new power stations, we shall continue to be affected by it for many decades to come. The hon. Member for Bother Valley (Mr. Barron) concluded his speech on that important point.
The Bill deals with three principal, discrete matters—the first of which is the increase in British Nuclear Fuel plc's borrowing powers. That is to some extent a technical matter, but it allows one to raise the wider question as to whether the reasons for BNFL's increased costs are as have been stated by the Minister. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on the argument made by his hon. Friend the Member for Havant about decommissioning costs. However, I realise that the Government must give a considered reply to the Select Committee's report and will not be able to answer in full this evening all the points that have been and will he made.
I want to reinforce a question asked by the hon. Member for Rother Valley. So many questions have been asked that the Minister may be tempted not to deal with them all. However, he ought to say something about the extraordinary report that appeared in today's issue of The Independent of a proposal by a Ministry of Defence official that nuclear submarines could be scuttled as a way of dealing with the decommissioning problem. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that such is not the Government's intention, because that solution is neither acceptable nor in accordance with our international agreements.
The first principal subject I want to address that is directly related to the Bill is the need for a commitment to long-term nuclear research and development, which arises directly out of clause 2. From 1 April 1990, the Health and Safety Executive will, under the terms of the Bill, assume responsibility on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission for managing certain nuclear safety research currently undertaken by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and financed by the Department of Energy. It is vital to have a long-term programme of nuclear safety research and development, and it is insufficient to contemplate fire brigade action—turning out a task force of scientists and engineers to respond only when a nuclear safety problem rears its head. Instead, a dedicated team undertaking long-term research is needed, whose advice on safety matters would be immediately available if required, and whose foresight would ensure that sources of concern about nuclear safety are averted.
That view was expressed by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which stated in volume 1 of its report of 22 December 1987, entitled "Research and Development of Nuclear Power":
Companies in commercial production often feel the need to cut back on activities that do not show immediate commercial returns. Long-term research and development is by definition such an activity, but it is nevertheless essential. If the privatised industry fails to make its own arrangements, the Committee believes that the Government should make arrangements for them. It is ultimately the Government who are responsible for the long-term security of the nation's supplies of energy. Privatisation does not change that.
Legislation, or at least firm Government policy, may be needed in the context of current plans to privatise the electricity supply industry in order to preserve intact vital long-term research and development programmes. The Minister spoke of a £20 million reduction in Department of Energy expenditure. All the Government propose is a change in the route by which funding from the industry reaches the authority. I fear that that direct use of industry money to fund research and development programmes may dangerously distort long-term safety research programmes, and starve vital projects of funds in that way.
My next point concerns an omission from the Bill that is both surprising and significant. I refer to the lack of any provision to make good a defect in the legislation under which the UKAEA handles contracts and consultancy work and the fruits of its research and development. The staff of the Atomic Energy Authority represent a unique national resource—comparable with our resources of coal, oil and gas. It not only founded a major industry in this country, providing half the electricity in Scotland through nuclear power stations but now it is increasingly expanding its non-nuclear research and development

activities. It is able to offer the benefits of its research and development to British industry.
The authority should be able to derive full commercial benefit from the results of the research and development programme which it is permitted to carry out in non-nuclear areas. Its main enabling statutes—the Atomic Energy Authority Acts 1954 and 1986, and the Science and Technology Act 1965—restrict the ways in which the authority can pursue this commercialisation. It is not permitted to carry out non-nuclear manufacturing or commercial service activities based on its research findings, which is a major disadvantage. The Government have known of this for some time.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology clearly saw this matter in the same light as I did. Volume 1 of its report on research and development in nuclear power says:
The UKAEA now operates on a trading fund basis. The Government wishes the UKAEA to be managed as far as possible commercially: but it proposes to continue the statutory restrictions which prevent the UKAEA from participating directly in the commercial exploitation of its expertise. The Committee feel this is inconsistent and they recommend that these restrictions be relaxed, providing there is no element of subsidy in tendering for commercial contracts.
Why has the opportunity not been taken to include in the Bill that modification of these constituting Acts to allow the Atomic Energy Authority to engage in that commercial activity directly? It seemed the ideal vehicle by which to do so.
I shall turn to a wider, third issue—the Bill does not reflect a national policy or strategy concerning the generation of electricity from nuclear power stations. The atomic energy industry is in disarray as a result of the Government's disaggregation of the supply industry—proposed through privatisation and the setting up of new companies. Formerly, the Central Electricity Generating Board had taken upon its shoulders the business of formulating and promulgating a national strategy.
However, present signs are that National Power, the biggest of the companies in the disaggregated supply industry, is not prepared to take the same responsibility for formulating and promulgating a nuclear electricity strategy. The Government recognise this difficulty because they have ring-fenced the nuclear industry. However, that is a sterile, and inevitably temporary, measure. They define the industry as one which has the present size and type of nuclear installation, and offer no plan for adding to, or substituting for, those installations in a systematic way. That is sterile because, as Ministers have acknowledged, the ring fence will remain in place for only a few years. What will happen after that? Ministers have been vague about that in debates on the privatisation Bill. They seem to imply that nuclear power will have to stand on its own feet at the end of that period, or perhaps for 10 years. However, we all know what that is likely to mean—a process of erosion where, as reactors are shut down, they are replaced by whatever is the economic flavour of the day. At the moment, that would be stations fuelled by natural gas.
This is not a strategy, a policy or even a proper response to market forces in an industry in which planning and constructing a nuclear power station takes a decade, and the station may operate for half a century. A national energy policy is needed. Although I cannot expect the


Minister, in replying to the debate, to outline such a policy, the fact that the debate is conducted in this vacuum is striking. The proposals in the Bill do little to show even the way in which Ministers are thinking.
The Minister will remember, because he alluded to it during debates on the privatisation Bill, the views of the County Emergency Planning Officers Society about the need for composite off-site emergency planning. I understand that, in November, the Department of Energy set up a liaison group as a national forum for considering public protection aspects of nuclear emergency planning. When the Electricity Bill was considered on Report, the Minister said that the lack of formal responsibility on local authorities to produce emergency plans for nuclear installations, such as exist for the chemical industry, had been noted. He said that legislative help was on the way for the integration of plans.
The Bill has not been chosen as the vehicle for such help. What prospects are there for such legislation? The Bill ratifies the international convention on assistance in the case of accident or radiological emergency. It seems odd that these further safety measures, which are certainly cognate with the convention, have not been included in the Bill. When will the Minister's deliberations be completed?
The Bill is broadly acceptable and its passage through the House should be supported. I hope that the fact that it has been linked tonight with some debate on the report of the Select Committee on Energy does not mean that this will be the sole opportunity for the House to debate the report of the hon. Member for Havant and his colleagues, because the subject that it covers goes beyond the ambit of the Bill, is important and should not be addressed in a short debate with the short notice that we have been given.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Having listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), I believe that he has adequately dealt with the escalation in costs. In defence of British Nuclear Fuels, I say only that it has had to maintain high standards, set by the nuclear installations inspectorate, and to deal with waste disposal to the satisfaction of the Select Committee on the Environment. A Rolls-Royce solution was much too expensive for the low level waste, but it seems to have adopted one. It has also done a remarkable job in cutting down effluent discharges. Those activities have, cumulatively, escalated its costs. In a press release it indicated that one of the principal increases was due to the additional expenditure at Drigg, which is understood.
Paragraph 51 of the report says:
Under the new policy, the estimated current cost of decommissioning all BNFL plant and facilities is £.4·6 billion".
A little further on it says:
Despite this 58 per cent. reduction due to discounting, customers' liability for BNFL decommissioning costs has risen more than fivefold. Furthermore, BNFL's percentage share appears to have decreased significantly from approximately 23 per cent. to approximately 10 per cent. of the total.
That means that over the years money flows into the coffers which could be spent on new plant and equipment. It is paid now, but the liability for BNFL will come a long time later. BNFL has been able to spread some of the risk among its customers.
That is one way of looking at the matter, but there is another way. In the Financial Times of 12 October 1988 it was reported that Dr. Harry Lawton, a former head of the laboratories at Sellafield, had said at an international conference that
Decommissioning and disposing of nuclear power stations might cost the equivalent of up to 20 per cent. of the electricity generated over their lifetime.
The cost is enormous, and we must not overlook it.
Nuclear waste is another source of high expenditure. By the year 2000 the cost of disposing of the quantity of high-level waste, at £495,000 per cubic metre, will work out at £1·6 billion. The disposal of intermediate-level waste, at £18,000 per cubic metre, will work out at £1·08 billion. Because of the Rolls-Royce method of burial at great depth, used for low-level waste of which there is a vast quantity but which tends to be much lower in radiation, disposal will work out at 1·5 billion. The total bill for disposal of British nuclear waste will be £4·2 billion.
Those are big liabilities, and the policy has largely been to pass them on to customers. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Havant that the road ahead is nuclear, provided that we do not have to experience technological changes that may require a movement of resources. The way ahead, in my view, involves the fast reactor and, ultimately, fusion. But let us take a hard look at the costs and make them clear to the public.
On cost-plus trading, Mr. Harding said in evidence to the Select Committee:
I am absolutely certain that we will be needing to look at different terms of trading with the privatised National Power, Power Generation and the Scottish boards. We did in fact take some initiative something like two years ago before privatisation was announced to open up discussions.
Why, if negotiations were started two years ago, has so little happened? I appreciate that the contracts cannot be completely renegotiated; that would be too expensive, as paragraph 25 of the report makes clear. On the other hand, if it is open to BNFL to pass on most of its costs, that will not be in the interests of efficiency. I think that BNFL will have regard to that. Unless a complete answer can be found, the flotation will be greatly impeded.
What man will put his money forward for the flotation of, say, National Power if he feels that some of the commitments are so substantial and uncertain that profitability could later be reduced? We considered that question in the Committee stage of the Electricity Bill; indeed, I brought it up myself. It looks as though lavish expenditure will take place well in advance to ensure that the public are safeguarded against financial risk.
I am satisfied that THORP is a great concept. It has ample orders for the next 10 years, and hopes in the years after that to obtain orders from a number of countries in Europe and probably beyond. It will be able to do that only because the plant will be largely paid off and liberal discounts will be possible. But what are the likely prospects for the United Kingdom industry? What organisation in the private sector will build a nuclear power station above 300 MW? We have been told—we were told in Committee—that at least four nuclear power stations are to be built: Sizewell B, which is in the course of construction; Sizewell C, involved in a planning inquiry; Hinkley Point C, which it is hoped will be available in 1998; and Wylfa, each with a capacity of 1,175 MW.
What will happen if the first is built and the second goes ahead? That will mean that we are not replacing the


electricity derived from nuclear power. We now have Magnox stations with 4,793 MW and AGRs totalling 5,870 MW. That makes a total of 10,663 MW. But there will have to be some retirements. The Magnox reactors which will be moving out in the 1990s have a capacity of 3,500 MW. Hinkley Point B has a capacity of 1,120 MW, making a total of 4,620 MW. Replacements will be needed, and those replacements will be the new power stations to which National Power is committed, totalling 4,700 MW. If those stations are not produced, there will be no decommissioning or reprocessing at a later date.
I think that the Government have made a big mistake in not keeping the nuclear side in Government hands, where investment could be looked after carefully. I cannot see the private sector building nuclear power stations above 300 MW. I envisage the electricity from nuclear power stations falling from 20 per cent. of the total to between 10 and 15 per cent.

Mr. Maclennan: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman made the welcome assertion that he believed that eventually fast reactors and perhaps even fusion would be the basis of our nuclear programme. Does he base that belief on the expectation that at some stage there will be a change in Government policy? Is that what he is working towards?

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am entirely persuaded that the Government will change their mind later because they will have to do so. If the amount of electricity derived from nuclear sources is to fall, that will mean less work later for THORP. As I said, the whole logic of THORP was the reprocessing of the fuel elements from the newer stations —the advanced gas-cooled reactors and the pressurised water reactors—for two purposes. One was to recycle a waste product, to take out uranium which could be recycled in a way with which we are familiar. The other was to take out the plutonium, not simply to put it into store, but to use it in fast reactors.
What have the Government done? They say that there will be no fast reactors for the next 20 to 30 years and that we do not, therefore, need to spend such amounts on research. Thus one of the biggest planks for THORP has gone, unless it is brought back again.
The Opposition need not be too jocular. Everyone in the United Kingdom is together in fighting the same problem. Some say that the money could be spent on other things, but dispensing with the fast breeder reactor is not in the long-term interests of United Kingdom energy policy or in the interests of the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who has a local unemployment problem. It is much more important for the United Kingdom that we should carry on with the policy of developing the fast reactor.
We have the possibility of being able to use the plutonium in store, or we can keep the 26 tonnes in there for ever. I dare say a part of it could be used for military purposes, but not from the peaceful purposes stockpile. It was said in evidence to the Select Committee on Energy that it could be used in mixed oxide fuel, but, as has been said before, there is no market for that in the United Kingdom. It is quite unsuitable for AGRs. It may be used for PWRs, but how many will we have here? One is in the course of construction, but it will be some time before the

programme materialises. I do not know how many more we shall have. There is no mixed oxide plant in the United Kingdom, although the process is thoroughly understood.
It has also been said that there may be a small European market for such fuel. However, West Germany is nervous about such matters, Sweden intends to close down its industry entirely by the turn of the century, Italy has virtually no nuclear power and although Belgium is a big producer of nuclear power it does not look as though a market will develop there. The Japanese are keen on the method and may use some of their own plutonium in PWRs. I fully support reprocessing because it recycles waste materials. One can draw out uranium and use it again in further fuel charges. One can draw out plutonium and then divert it, as a sensible policy, into fast reactors. One can take out the actinides, turn them into solid compounds and take them out of danger to civilisation. At present, however, we are stockpiling the stuff in large quantities. The report and the Government recommend that some of it should be passed over to National Power. I believe that it should never be passed over to the private sector, but should be under the control and scrutiny of the state. It is right for the defence of the realm that it should be so held.
I shall support the Bill. There are some interesting clauses, such as clauses 2, 3 and 5, which will excite much argument in Committee. The Government are doing a major job, but it behoves me to concentrate on clause 1, which deals with British Nuclear Fuels and is an important aspect of the Bill which may need to be refined. British Nuclear Fuels is a spendid and profitable company. It has great confidence in THORP for the future—far more than I have, even though plant will be written off and there will be heavy discounting to secure more contracts. Through its European connections, it has been securing many valuable contracts and earning foreign exchange. We are told today that it is the biggest earner of yen in this country, which is a signal achievement in itself.
Being able to do well today, however, does not mean that a company will be profitable tomorrow. Technological changes can bring abrupt changes of course which may be disastrous to companies. Let us hope that British Nuclear Fuels has a remarkably good course. It is asking for a further £500 million. Let us hope that it never comes back to the House again for additional money and that it will keep to the ceiling of £2,000 million. The coal industry never fails to come back to the House for more because it is greedy for extra money and once it has received the cash it begins to waste it.

Dr. Kim Howells: I have the advantage of not having to be as generous in my assessment of the management at British Nuclear Fuels and its performance as the hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), whose contribution I admired greatly, as I did the contribution of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet).
Clause 1 asks the House to approve another £500 million of taxpayers' money being made available to bail out the management of a company which, over the past decade, has regrettably become a haven for smugness, complacency and arrogance, a management encouraged, moreover, by the willingness of successive Ministers


throughout the period to sign virtually open cheques in lieu of that rarest of modern British commodities, hard cash for energy research and development.
I shall give one small but immediate example of the incompetence of the management at British Nuclear Fuels. On page 10 of the minutes of evidence in the report of the Select Committee on Energy, the chairman of BNFL, Mr. Harding, is reported as saying:
The price of raw uranium moves in a fairly direct relationship with the world price of coal and oil. The fact that both those have come down has brought down with it the price of uranium.
Yet on page 25 of the same report, a memorandum from British Nuclear Fuels in answer to the Committee says:
BNFL is not aware of any direct links between uranium prices on the one hand and coal or oil prices on the other hand.
Considering the short time lapse between the delivery to the Committee of those two opinions, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the management at BNFL has either undergone one of its sudden and apocalyptic reassessments of operational costs or that its senior managers are not speaking to each other—or perhaps both. Whatever the real reason, it is clear that a lame duck rescue such as the one we are being asked to approve here has encouraged in BNFL an air of smugness instead of vigilance, complacency instead of readiness to respond to the realities of a changing world and arrogance, which derives from the sure knowledge that its cost—plus contracts, which the Central Electricity Generating Board and the South of Scotland electricity board delayed signing until 1982, would cushion it from the real world.
The whole point of BNFL being set up was to recover uranium for thermal reactors and plutonium for fast reactors. As the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North stated most eloquently, recent developments pose serious questions about those aims. Fuel prices, both existing and projected, have therefore played a crucial part in any assessment of BNFL's business. They are a crucial assessment in terms of our judgment of the Bill. If it appears that we in this House judge that traded world uranium prices are unlikely to rise significantly in real terms over the next 20 years, or that our nuclear stations are unlikely to require the service capacity offered by BNFL, or that the much-lauded BNFL foreign contracts are unlikely to prove the kind of bonanza that BNFL tells us they will be, then there is little point in stuffing another £500 million into the mouth of that company.
Perhaps, however, the Government do not care about the odd £500 million. Perhaps they have failed to notice that BNFL's own graph in the Enregy Committee's report shows clearly that, in constant money values—indexed to the starting date of the graph, 1973—uranium ore prices are lower now than they were over 15 years ago, averaging at the moment around $12 to $15 per pound on the spot market. Perhaps they have also failed to notice that for a number of reasons the world's available reserves of uranium yellowcake are ample to meet current and projected demand and highly unlikely to decrease markedly in the foreseeable future.
Part of the reason for low prices and abundance of supply has been the failure of the nuclear industry worldwide to expand as people expected it to expand, in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. In this country we have witnesed that failure of expansion first hand and, with it, the raison d'etre for much of BNFL's operations.
Let us examine for one moment the performance of the advanced gas-cooled reactors—our AGRs that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North and upon which rest so much of the THORP project's hopes and aspirations. The CEGB has four AGR sites —Hinkley, Dungeness, Hartlepool and Heysham. However, a closer examination of that list reveals that only Hinkley B and one of the Dungeness reactors have put any electricity into the national grid. Hinkley is credited with a load factor of just 49·6 per cent. and the Dungeness reactor with a minuscule 1 per cent.—a kind of electronic spasm and a little like the Minister's hand as I imagine him signing the cheques for BNFL, year after year. The other Dungeness reactor is still not working after construction overruns that seem to have lasted decades. The state of the Hartlepool and Heysham reactors is as ropey as ever it was—Hartlepool especially.
So where is all BNFL's business to come from? Is it to come from the Scottish AGRs? Well, it had better, but it is by no means a certainty that it will. The conspicuously un-knighted chairman of the South of Scotland electricity board, Donald Miller, has made his views about BNFL's performance perfectly clear by signalling the premature closure of the Hunterston A station and at the same time by spreading the word that the SSEB's operational profits were nullified by the increased charges that he was forced to pay BNFL under the terms of its cost-plus contracts. Donald Miller's tactics may have given us an insight into the frosty state of relations between the generators and BNFL, but it will not have done his chances of a knighthood much good.
So where is THORP's great future to come from? From its foreign contracts, we are told. But what degree of certainty do we have that even they will prove to be anything other than a means of turning this country into the world's nuclear dustbin? The West Germans, for example, have decided that they do not need a nuclear reprocessing plant, despite the size of their nuclear generating industry. The Wackersdorf reprocessing plant project is being abandoned and there are well-founded rumours that the West Germans will use France's Cap Hague facility and not BNFL's THORP plant at Sellafield for future requirements.
The nuclear generating industries of the United States of America, Canada and Sweden have all decided that they will not go down the road of reprocessing. They have opted for direct storage technologies. The Swedes especially, with a much smaller economy than ours and an electricity supply industry that supplies, proportionately, a much larger amount of electricity to the grid than does ours, have taken some hard and revolutionary decisions that will no doubt make them world leaders in the planning and practice of handling depleted nuclear fuel and waste.
What decisions are we being asked to make in considering the Bill? We are being asked to pour more good money after bad—and for what? So that we can continue to draw upon ourselves the opprobrium of the world for irradiating the Irish sea with Japan's nuclear waste? So that we can continue to find our requests kicked into touch every time we approach a foreign Government about allowing over their territories future flights by BNFL's plutonium-carrying aircraft? What a joy that little procedure has been. The Canadians have indicated their unwillingness. The Governor of Alaska has refused


permission. I am sure that if polar bears could communicate with BNFL, they would refuse permission, too.
It is hard to imagine any species on earth daft enough to argue that plutonium should be flown from Prestwick to Japan. After the flight has headed north and over the pole, avoiding Iceland, Greenland, Ellesmere island, Alaska and eastern Siberia, of course, it heads south—past the Soviet Kamchatka missile bases and those of Sakhalin and the ones littered along the coast near the huge Vladivostok naval installations—before swooping down towards the Japanese mainland, one of the most densely populated areas on the face of the earth. What an eventful voyage each of those little beauties would have. I can just imagine the Soviet missile commanders not noticing the odd half tonne of plutonium drifting towards them every time there is a high easterly wind blowing in from the Pacific.
Why is BNFL not keen on transporting its plutonium by sea? Is it because it thinks that the Japanese may want it in a hurry when business starts up? That is highly unlikely, I should have thought. I cannot imagine that the Japanese want to manufacture miniature nuclear bombs. One cannot use plutonium for much else if one does not possess a commercial fast breeder reactor, or if one is not prepared to compromise the economics of thermal reactors by running them with some version of a mixed oxide fuel. Knowing the Japanese reputation for business acumen, that is highly unlikely.
Why, therefore, the BNFL proposal to fly it out? I would hazard a guess that it has dreamt it up as a means of cutting costs and of preventing yet another escalation of projected prices. If plutonium is sent by sea, the USA and other nations will demand, as they have already demanded, that it is escorted by an armed vessel that is capable of warding off attacks by hostile nations or terrorists or of aiding a ship that has got into difficulties so that there is no repeat of the tragedy that we have just witnessed in Alaska—but the tragedy of a plutonium escape, not oil.
There are Administrations throughout the world, such as the American Administration, who have become extremely concerned at reports of missing parcels of nuclear fuel and who will continue to insist that, no matter what the financial cost, no more should go missing. It is obvious that the cost of seaborne cargoes will be very high indeed if each one has to be guarded by the Royal Navy or by a privatised version of that service.
BNFL's motives are clear. It favours airborne transportation of fuel because it imagines that it will be cheaper than seaborne transportation. I warn the Minister not to trust BNFL's judgment. Its judgment has not been very good in the past. The accumulated risks and the potential costs of the kind of airborne error that we have witnessed all too often and all too tragically lately will be beyond calculation. BNFL's transportation ventures until now have been far from distinguished. Its peripheral involvement—however innocent it may have been—with the notorious Nukem-Transnuklear affair in West Germany has done nothing to improve its international image, however blameless it may have been over the whole issue.
It is a company that deals in the most dangerous substances known, and particularly in plutonium. Perhaps

its plans to rush plutonium away from these shores by air are governed by an overwhelming desire to rid itself of the material as quickly as possible rather than because of Japan's desire to receive it. It already possesses 25 useless tonnes of plutonium at Sellafield. Nobody wants it. After all, what can anyone do with it, except spend millions on storing and guarding the stuff throughout the next millenium? The chairman of National Power does not want it. Mr. Baker's leaked letter makes that perfectly clear.
I have no doubt that the £500 million that we are being asked to underwrite in clause I will serve only to encourage BNFL to continue to underuse and waste the enormous reservoir of talent that it has assembled at Sellafield and at its other stations. I urge the Minister to exercise financial prudence, which this Government have done so often over the past 19 years in their administration of our other major energy concerns. For the sake of both common sense and responsible government, he should consider withdrawing clause 1, which provides for this extra funding.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I apologise for not having been present for the entire debate and, in particular, for having missed the contributions of the hon. Members for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), especially that of the hon. Member for Havant, who was Chairman of the Select Committee that produced the report which is relevant to this debate.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Havant, whose first few words I did hear, described the Bill as technical. As someone who cannot change a light bulb or a plug, or keep his own accounts, I think that the term "technical" is liable to make people like me dive for cover. Actually, there are two different interpretations of the word—it can be used to create two different impressions. The first is that the issue being described is minor and non-political. Clearly, this Bill is not that; it is concerned, in the first clause, with extending the borrowing requirements of the nuclear industry by one third, and with advancing that industry's capability and capacity. If provisions such as clause 1 were not agreed to, the industry would be halted in its development. If the industry could not borrow, it would not be able to live quite as well as is intended.
Then there is the other interpretation of "technical": that matters so described are non-understandable, that the issues are too complex for people such as me, and are understood only by civil servants and accountants and that we should therefore let it go through. But this is clearly not the case, for it is understandable—if not in terms of some of the detail, clearly in terms of the principles involved. At least it provides those of us who do not have a technical bent an opportunity to make some anti-nuclear noises.
The borrowing requirement is to be extended for the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield—THORP. Permission for its construction was given in 1978, when it was estimated that the cost would be £300 million. The plant was to come into operation by April 1987. By 1983, the capital costs had risen to £1,280 million, and the start-up was put off until December 1990. BNFL now says that the capital costs will be almost £1,500 million and that the start-up date will be late 1992. Are we sure that the borrowing requirements will not need to be raised? The


record is not inspiring, and as greater account is taken of safety measures, extra costs may be imposed on the industry.
Added to this, although estimates have undoubtedly been partly involved in it, is something that is likely to be extended in the future—decommissioning processes for the whole industry. Paragraph 41 of the report says:
future potential customers, when placing new reprocessing contracts, can hardly find very attractive the rise of THORP's costs in real terms and the delay in its start up. NII requirements were the principal reason on both accounts. Customers must wonder whether safety requirements in the future will occasion even more delays and cost escalations.
I hope that that will be the case, and that we are becoming more and more safety conscious, for reasons such as those spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).
The commercial insurance factor in clause 3 is quite fascinating. What actuarial considerations are involved? "Actuarial" is a technical term, but what we are concerned about are the factors that have to be considered and the chances of various things going wrong. In the context of the nuclear industry, there are the meltdown possibilities, problems of prevailing winds, and problems of airborne disasters, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd.
If a disaster involving plutonium in transit were to occur in a place such as Malta, which is a small island, it could be disastrous for the whole nation. At present Malta is going for the development of new power station provisions. Thankfully, because it is such a small nation, nuclear power is not financially feasible. If an accident were to occur in such an area, it would devastate not only the island but the whole of the Mediterranean. That consideration must be extended to our own island. Although our area and our population are vastly greater than those of Malta, this is still an island. What liabilities have to be taken into account? What, for instance, about dead sheep? How is the accountancy aspect going to be related to that?
Should we not be putting a brake on nuclear development, given that at present there is a great deal of scientific speculation about nuclear fusion—what methods of fusion can be used, and whether these can take place, for instance, at room temperature? I do not know whether, if we were to be told that it could take place at room temperature, we would give the impression that it was as safe as a front room. Or will we have the same problems as I imagine are associated with the current industry—except that some of the problems of meltdown then begin to disappear?
The hon. Member for Havant criticised press interpretations of the Select Committee's report. It is not surprising that the press has responded to the report in what some people may see as a sensational fashion. Paragraph 46, which deals with the transporting of plutonium to Japan by air or sea, states:
We are concerned about the proposal to fly plutonium to Japan in future, and especially about the use of Prestwick airport…In the wake of the Lockerbie disaster, the consequence of a similar air accident—or terrorist outrage—involving plutonium are too horrific to contemplate.
The movement of toxic, hazardous and nuclear waste across national frontiers and seas, in particular, seems to me to be especially worrying. A nuclear equivalent of the Karin B, oil spills or of the Lockerbie air disaster is well understood by ordinary people. The thinking may be sensational, but there are very good reasons for having

sensational considerations of that type very much to the forefront of our minds. We must be worried by provisions in this Bill. They are technical, but they are technical forms of treachery so far as the wellbeing of people is concerned.

Mr. Barron: I do not intend to delay the House long, but I ought to comment on one or two of the speeches that we have heard.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who is not in his place at the moment, shares with me the view that people are slightly alarmed by the newspaper report about the scuttling of a nuclear submarine. Although I know that the Minister has no departmental responsibility for defence, he may want to comment on that.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) never ceases to amaze me by his support for the nuclear industry. The industry must be terrified every time he gets to his feet. I am even more amazed by his thoughts on low-level nuclear waste. Only a few years ago the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North was a major voice in the "Bedfordshire Says No" campaign when it was proposed to dump nuclear waste in that county. I am told that he led that campaign well. He now says that the Rolls-Royce solution which has increased the cost is not the answer. When the Select Committee on the Environment published its report on that matter, I am not sure that it was totally convinced by the solution. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that it is better than what was happening at Drigg at that time. It is now in concrete trenches in steel boxes and is retrievable if anything goes wrong.
That has increased the cost to BNFL or at least to its customers since most of the contracts are on a cost-plus basis. However, it makes people in that area and in the country in general more confident about the disposal of low-level nuclear waste.
The rest of the speech by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North consisted of his customary promotion of the flotation of National Power. He pointed out what everybody knows and what will make John Baker and others happy, which is the tie-up of the cost of the nuclear fuel cycle as it is at present.
The hon. Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) and my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) raised an important question about decommissioning. I should like to ask the Minister about the increased cost of decommissioning. As I understand the information in the report, decommissioning is now the total liability of BNFL and will cost £4·6 billion for the new decommissioning policy. Under the old policy, the total liability was £438 million. As I understand it, most of the costs in the cost-plus contracts are passed on to the customers of BNFL which at present are the CEGB and the foreign companies which are sending waste here.
I am interested to note that that does not deal with the decommissioning of all generators in Britain. It is the cost of decommissioning BNFL's plants, and BNFL has only two generators. Therefore, the decommissioning costs of Magnox and other power stations when they come to the end of their life will be in addition to that £4·6 billion. Therefore, we are talking about a much greater threat to the public purse. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that immediately, but I give him notice that we will


want to probe that issue further. We will want to discover the total cost of decommissioning Magnox and AGR power stations, and PWR stations if they are fuel-fed in years to come.
The hon. Member for Havant and my hon. Friends mentioned the transportation of plutonium. I understand that it is a major issue in the Prestwick area. I believe that the hon. Member representing that area is the Secretary of State for Defence. In some instances he has no argument about plutonium flying around in airborne craft. I wonder what his position is in relation to the concept of moving tonnes of plutonium to the other side of the world by aircraft flying out of his constituency.
I agree, as I am sure do many others, with the comments made by the hon. Member for Havant about his Committee's feelings on the issue. Perhaps it is an issue on which we should go no further than we have already. However, we still do not have an answer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd about what we shall do with the tonnes of reprocessed fuel that we have on our hands now. We are told that a clause in the recent contract says that the waste should return to the country of origin. At present, we have no programme for the movement of that fuel so that we can complete that clause in the contract. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's comments on that.

Mr. Michael Spicer: In his opening remarks the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked whether the Government intend to make a full response to the Select Committee's report. I can confirm that that will be the case. In the meantime, the House might wish me briefly to give our initial answers to some of the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland asked about long-term research. In my opening remarks I said that the Health and Safety Commission will need to sponsor research on its own account to ensure that the totality of research is adequate. Therefore, there will be research independent of the immediate requirements of, for example, the nuclear installations inspectorate doing its safety checks and the research associated with that. There will be ongoing research in parallel with that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about my comments during the Report stage of the Electricity Bill on emergency planning procedures. The Health and Safety Commission has asked the Health and Safety Executive to bring forward regulations which will require local authorities to have plans available for dealing with emergencies at nuclear installations. Those regulations will be made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 after full consultation with interested bodies. Therefore, an intense consultation process is taking place. It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to bring the regulations forward. There is a promise that those regulations—GMAH-type regulations—will be brought forward.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the relationship between the Atomic Energy Authority and the private sector, whether there could be an extension of that relationship and why it had not been done in the Bill. That is an extremely difficult issue which poses problems that we

are currently considering. It raises the question of how far one can allow a public sector body to trade in the private sector. There are arguments both ways. No doubt we shall tell the House our thoughts when we have considered that matter further.

Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Minister for those answers. Can he give me any idea of the time scale he has in mind for considering that matter?

Mr. Spicer: No, I cannot. Obviously, with the changes that have taken place in the AEA, the issue is likely to be in the front of our minds when we think about its future. It would be implicit in the changes that are taking place in the organisation as a result of the various decisions we have taken in the past few months.
The theme of the debate was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and particularly by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). In the context of the additional finance limits for which the Bill makes provision, the hon. Member for Pontypridd said that the Bill represented a lame-duck rescue. I do not think that he could have been in the Chamber when I said that BNFL has been consistently profitable since its inception, had paid dividends over the last 12 years and aims to pay off all its borrowings by the mid-1990s. He made a comparison with the coal industry. I only wish that it was a true comparison, because, if that were the position facing the coal industry, a lot of our problems, certainly with respect to the coal industry, would not exist. It was a speech that was unusual for the hon. Gentleman. It was full of hyperbole and not, I think, fully worthy of him.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman did not like it.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has just rushed into the Chamber and is coming to the defence of the coal industry. It is not a question of not liking it; I was not passing a value judgment on it. It was factually inaccurate to talk about a lame-duck rescue. The hon. Member for Bolsover backs his hon. Friend's judgment no doubt because he shares his prejudices. The hon. Member for Bolsover is full of prejudices; he is riddled with them. Therefore, it is wholly unproblematic that he would support his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd's prejudices. I am not surprised that he backs his hon. Friend against me. In fact, I would be rather unhappy if the hon. Member for Bolsover's prejudices were on my side.
I turn now to the question of costs at BNFL because undoubtedly there have been cost overruns in the past. I concede that to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, who particularly raised this point, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) also raised it. Because of cost-plus contracts, the effect of these overruns has been the almost automatic increase in prices paid by the CEGB; and because of the monopolistic position of the CEGB in the market place it has in turn been able to pass these cost increases straight through to the electricity consumer.
With the passage of the Electricity Bill—which is relevant in this context, Madam Deputy Speaker—all this will change. The privatised successor companies to the CEGB will no doubt wish to put far greater pressure on BNFL when contracts are struck between them for further


reprocessing and related work. What is more, these contracts will be fixed price in nature. BNFL will therefore be under pressure to continue the process of tightening the control by its management of the vast capital projects in which it is currently engaged. And, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North, the Government will ensure that the contracts finally signed are fair as between BNFL and the electricity supply industry. It will be a difficult operation, I concede.

Sir Trevor Skeet: I am heartened by this. These will be fixed price contracts from now on. From what date will this be so? They will not antecede the current date covering the past? This is where the generating companies could fall into difficulties.

Mr. Spicer: The practice of entering fixed price contracts has already been started, so they are nothing new. All I am telling my hon. Friend and the House is that, particularly as the ESI prepares for privatisation, the contracts it will need to strike for its reprocessing arrangements will in all probability be on the basis of fixed prices.

Mr. Barron: I think that the Minister has nearly answered my question, but I want to ask it again. What the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) is asking and what I am asking is this: is the Minister saying that any fuel that is currently under the old cost-plus contract signed for reprocessing will be moved to a new contract with the flotation of the electricity supply industry?

Mr. Spicer: If what I say now is wrong, I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about it. The answer really depends on the precise terms of the contracts, I suspect. I do not think it will be possible simply to renegade on the existing contracts; they will be part of the assets and liabilities of the successor company.

Mr. Skinner: Renegade? Does he not mean renege?

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member for Bolsover is on form this evening. I fully concede that he is absolutely right; I used the wrong word at that point. I hope that will be the only point on which I shall have to agree with him for the rest of the evening.
I have to say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant that the rise in unit prices in BNFL's main businesses over the past three years amounted to less than 7 per cent. annually for enrichment, were virtually nil for Magnox fuel manufacture and were 8·5 per cent. annually for reprocessing. In fact, AGR fuel prices decreased between 1984 and 1987.
As to the cost increases in the THORP project, increased costs of £200 million to a total of £1·8 billion were due to a requirement to meet more rigorous safety standards and to escalations arising from a delay of over two years in the project. BNFL has now carried out a major review of the THORP project and is increasingly confident of its ability to complete the plant within the latest costs estimate. The first stage receipt and storage facility is now on stream and the main plant is on schedule for completion in 1992.
As to the anxieties which have been expressed by, in particular, the hon. Member for Pontypridd but also by my hon. Friend's Committee about THORP's long-term business prospects, all I can say is that I would not mind

having a business which had 10 years' profitable contracts in the bag amounting to some £4 billion. As the House knows, by far the largest component of these contracts is contracts with Japan, which amount to around £2 billion and will make THORP the largest earner of yen in the country. The Japanese contracts are even contributing to the present development of THORP, which will have been fully written off by the time the first 10-year contracts come to an end.
I turn next to the second major point which has been recurring throughout this short but, I think the House will agree, interesting debate, the question of the significant misrepresentation which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant has acknowledged, has been given to the Committee's report on the question of the dumping of foreign nuclear waste in this country.
All contracts, for the reprocessing of spent fuel signed since 1976 have contained clauses for the return of waste. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that the pre-1976 contracts should be renegotiated. They were freely entered into and it would be impossible for any Government to step in now and attempt to get them amended retrospectively. Paragraph 30 of the report of the Committee has been particularly misrepresented in this context. The report talks specifically of waste from 1,500 tonnes of spent fuel as being the result of pre-1976 contracts. In the newspapers this morning this has become 1,500 tonnes of waste. In fact, 97 per cent. of this is recovered in the form of uranium and plutonium. About 100 cu m of high-level waste·that is, as said earlier, about two bus loads, which is rather different from the 1,500 tonnes mentioned in the press today—will arise from the reprocessing. This is less than one tenth of the expected high-level waste arising to the year 2000. The vast majority of the billions of pounds of business which lies ahead will be subject to the condition that the waste is returned to the country of origin.
Turning to another set of questions, about decommissioning, which hon. Gentlemen have raised during the course of the debate, a question was raised in particular —I think by the hon. Member for Rother Valley—about the wisdom or otherwise of leaving nuclear plant for a long period after it has been shut down before it is removed. Our primary concern is always to ensure that nuclear plant, whether operating or closed down, is safe in terms of both men and the environment. I will come to the specific question about the triggering of schedule 12 to the Bill in a moment, but there is no doubt that it is technically possible to decommission plant on a much shorter time scale than the industry at present plans. Indeed, we are demonstrating this with the Windscale AGR. However, the difficulties of doing that are considerable. In any reasonable commercial terms, it makes much more sense to leave dismantling work until radioactive decay makes it easier to meet required standards of worker and environmental protection.
The NII and the various authorities are quite clear that 100 years is the best period. Were somebody suddenly to impose a new regulation upon the industry to carry out the third stage of decommissioning sooner, it is quite possible that the provisions of schedule 12 might be triggered off and implemented.
The Select Committee made the interesting suggestion that the companies legislation should be amended to make decommissioning costs the first charge in the event of


liquidation. I certainly cannot be expected to make an immediate response to that suggestion today, but I have noted it.

Sir Ian Lloyd: Have the Government received what my hon. Friend would describe as a convincing and complete explanation of the vast difference between the two figures which I gave, the original figure of £468 million and the current figure of £4,600 million?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend was the Chairman of the Select Committee which recommended that the definition of "decommissioning" should be changed from plant on site to a return to a green field site. That redefinition of what was implicit in decommissioning has been a major reason behind the escalation in the provisions for decommissioning which BNFL is now making for its plants. My hon. Friend may have to pursue that point.
Several questions have been raised about the ownership, control and transportation of plutonium after privatisation. I assure the House that the privatisation of the electricity supply industry will make no difference to existing strict controls which govern the ownership and use of all civil materials. Plutonium and other nuclear materials will continue to be subject to Euratom safeguards and the terms of the United Kingdom-Euratom-IAEA safeguards agreement. Reports on plutonium production are supplied to the safeguards authorities by the reactor operators when the irradiated fuel is sent to reprocessing plants. Further reports are made at each stage as the plutonium works its way through the nuclear cycle.
Those procedures are administered by Euratom, whose safeguards inspectors have access at all times to the facilities in question to check that the reports are correct. The present restrictions on the transfer of nuclear material abroad will also continue after privatisation. Civil plutonium can be transferred abroad only on assurances covering its peaceful use, physical protection and controls on retransfer, and it will remain subject to the safeguards arrangements that I have already mentioned.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Who is to pay for the storage of plutonium? The companies cannot use it. Mixed oxide fuels are not used in the United Kingdom. Plutonium will be stored somewhere.

Mr. Spicer: When I refer to ownership, I may implicitly answer my hon. Friend's question. The hon. Member for Rother Valley also referred to ownership. I stress that it is normal international practice for generators of nuclear power to own the products of their reactors. Therefore, it becomes their responsibility and their cost. At present, plutonium derived from United Kingdom generating boards' fuel is stored at Sellafield, and that is likely to continue to be the practice after privatisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Havant and the hon. Member for Pontypridd were particularly forceful about transportation. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the comments that have been made.
Nuclear materials in transit are subject to very rigorous

international safety standards and regulations laid down by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those international regulations require substantial safety margins to be built into containers so that they can withstand even the severest accident without causing a significant public hazard. A recent study by the advisory committee on the safe transport of radioactive materials concluded that the safety and security risks in transporting nuclear materials were negligible. BNFL and other nuclear operators have been transporting nuclear materials, including plutonium, safely and securely for over 30 years.
I re-emphasise that the Government are committed to retaining nuclear power to provide essential diversity in fuel supplies. The Government's proposals for electricity privatisation should secure a healthy future for BNFL, at least until the end of the century. BNFL's prospects in the longer term will depend on how competitive it can make the services it offers, including reprocessing. The Select Committee's report is relevant in that context. Negotiations are currently under way between the company and the generating boards on new fixed price trading arrangements. That will undoubtedly mean increased risks for BNFL, but it will enable the company to reap the benefits of improvements in efficiency and revised work practices which it is introducing.
From the Government's point of view, it has been an interesting debate. We shall further consider the technical and detailed points and certainly give full attention to the Select Committee's report, which reached us only yesterday.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of bills).

Orders of the Day — ATOMIC ENERGY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Atomic Energy Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State;
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund; and
(3) any increase in the sums payable under any other enactment out of money provided by Parliament or out of the National Loans Fund or in the sums so payable into the Fund or the Consolidated Fund, being an increase attributable to any provision of the Act substituting a financial limit of £2,000 million for that imposed by section 2(1) of the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Act 1977 in relation to British Nuclear Fuels plc.—[Mr. Michael Spicer.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.

That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 23rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Namibia

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. Paul Boateng: The House has an opportunity tonight to debate Namibia, at a critical time for that war-torn and long-suffering country, when the outcome of debates such as this is important, not only in the House but in the Houses of Parliament of permanent members of the Security Council who hold the fate of Namibia in their hands. The outcome of such debates will determine the concerns at the end of the road on which Namibia has been set under resolution 435. The debate is important when we have seen waged a battle which has not only included the usual combatants—soldiers, guerrillas, troop carriers and guns—but is also very much about public relations. South Africa has waged a relentless public relations war against SWAPO. It is important that we should think of the human casualties and consequences of what is happening in that country.
I have in mind a young boy whom I and my German parliamentary colleague, Professor Dr. Klaus Osswalld, who recently travelled with me to Namibia, saw in the military base-airport—for it is both—of Oshikati. That little boy did odd jobs and ran errands and, by that means, supported himself, his parents and his grandparents—a whole extended family—in that region which, of late, has come to be entirely dependent for its economy on the presence of the military. The old traditional basis of Ovamboland's economy has all but disappeared and the area has become absorbed in the great military battle that is taking place in that area.
The little boy supported his extended family by running errands for the soldiers who guarded the airport—perhaps getting them a cold coke from the only refrigerator for miles around—and they would give him the odd cent or two and, during the course of the day, doing such little jobs as he could, he would collect sufficient rand to meet his needs and those of that whole family, who no longer had their land, their traditional means of support, to sustain them.
I wonder as we discuss Namibia what has happened to that little boy and his family in Ovamboland, in an area of the country which has become in certain parts a free fire area for the South African defence force. One suspects, if the little boy is still there, that he is making more rand than ever because of the extent of troop movements in the area and the many hundreds of troops now based around the airport there. He is probably still running errands for them, if he is there and if he has the heart—bearing in mind what might have happened to his family—to continue his efforts.
As we debate this issue, we must have in the forefront of our minds the future of that young boy and his family. What sort of future will he have in an independent Namibia? While it is important for us to consider current events and what led up to them, our major task must be to ensure that we move forward steadily and with resolution to the satisfactory implementation of resolution 435. We must build up in Namibia an economic and political infrastructure brought about as a result of free and fair elections. Such an infrastructure must be capable of maintaining, supporting and developing a non-racial democracy in that country. That will prove that there is

another way, a real alternative to apartheid South Africa, the nation on which Namibia will inevitably have to rely for some time for much of its needs if its economy is to survive.
We have an opportunity in Namibia to create a showcase for the people of South Africa, to show them what life can be like after apartheid. That is why it is vital for us to get it right. But we must be under no illusions about the forces that are working against such a peaceful settlement and the existence of that type of showcase.
I do not want to dwell tonight on what has happened in the past, but the version of events that has been put out by South Africa in recent days—the version of events that. I am afraid, has been reflected here in the utterances of the Prime Minister in replying to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—gives cause for concern. It is not enough to pillory SWAPO over the events of 1 April and what has happened subsequently—to put SWAPO in the dock and blind oneself to the reality of what the South Africans have been doing. Mistakes have undoubtedly been made on all sides, but South Africa cannot be proud of its role in this matter. Indeed, its role is worthy of condemnation by the international community.
We saw in the recent events in Ovamboland what was almost the inevitable result of a process that has never sought to include SWAPO in the decision-making. To this day—the recent meeting on Mount Etjo was an example of this—the process has not treated SWAPO as an equal party that must be consulted and involved in decisions about the future of that country.
We are seeing the consequences of not involving SWAPO, of a peace process that all too often has been based on protocols, conventions and understandings which are not formulated in one place, along with resolution 435. It is not possible to put one's hand on a bundle of documents and say, "This is the peace plan and this is what is to happen." The United Nations has not been able to do that, and it seems that nobody is able to look at the whole body of protocols and so on in a combined way, thereby creating the peace plan building on resolution 435. Hence, it is a flaky and nebulous agreement in too many ways, and we should not be surprised at what happened.
The version of events given by South Africa cannot be accepted without critical analysis, and that analysis must be based on what we hear and on eye witness accounts of what took place on the ground on 1 April. Those accounts deserve more credence than they have been given. I give an example from a witness of the churches in Namibia. He is from the Evangelical Lutheran church based in Ovamboland. He reported on an incident which occurred about 35 km north of Ongwediva.
Christian pastors who moved into the area shortly after the events I am describing came across five children. Children are the greatest victims of the struggle, not only in Namibia but throughout southern Africa. We must have special regard for them as victims because they are completely innocent, whatever their parents or relatives might be or might have done.
Those five children told of how they had to flee from the bullets, as they described it, and spend the night hiding in a bush. They took the delegation to a site where evidence of fighting was found. The delegation found blood and traces of bodies that had been dragged along the ground. They found items of equipment and foodstuff. They


interviewed civilian eye witnesses, one of whom told of how he had spoken to a man —one of a group of 50 men, he said—who told him that they were from SWAPO and that they were regrouping and had not come there to fight. The witness said that while they were speaking he heard the sound of approaching Casspirs, meaning armoured troop carriers. He said that the guerrilla told him to run away.
This is what the witness said then followed:
All of a sudden people were fleeing, bullets were flying, and the guerrillas took cover. The people who shot first were the SADF"—
that is, the South African defence force. That was the evidence of one eye witness who saw men being fired on, initially by the South African defence force. Those men sought to defend themselves and fired back. The men had not gone there for the purposes of engaging in or renewing a war, but to establish bases and to surrender to the UNTAG troops.
The evidence of that witness was to be repeated in a variety of incidents throughout Ovamboland. One must give that sort of witness some credence. It is no use dismissing it as SWAPO propaganda, as unreliable and not to be believed. We must weigh such evidence in the balance and we must then say, as all fair-minded and honest people do say, that there is some doubt and more than a question about whether SWAPO was there for any belligerent purpose. Indeed, the United Nations Secretary-General made it clear that it was not possible to say that SWAPO were the belligerents in this matter.
However, when the Prime Minister came hot-foot from Namibia to answer questions in the House, she gave the impression to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber that it ws all SWAPO's fault, that they were the ones to blame. In so doing, she lent credence to the South African regime and to its version of events. She provided it with a massive public relations coup, which it has been seeking to exploit ever since.
The Prime Minister must understand when she goes about her travels that she cannot hope to be perceived in the world or in Africa as the midwife of Namibian independence while she continues to act as if she were the wetnurse of apartheid. The two are inconsistent. If the Prime Minister cares about the future of Namibia—one must hope and pray that she does care—it is absolutely vital that she seeks to be, and is, even-handed between the parties.
One does not for one moment suggest that the Minister of State has been anything other than even-handed, but it is for the Prime Minister to give a lead in these matters and we are entitled to look to her for that lead. Only then will Britain be able to play a role in the resolution of this conflict and ensure that we fulfil our responsibilities not only in the Security Council, but our historic role and responsibilities in that part of Africa, which are real, great and heartfelt. We have a role to play and we must play it to the full.
But be that as it may, current events have cast a massive doubt on the sincerity of South Africa's commitment to the peace process. We have read today in the newspapers about massive gatherings of troops outside those areas where SWAPO guerrillas have been told to surrender their arms. Once again, the authorities have turned to the churches for support and have asked them to provide

places where people will feel safe to gather. However, the churches have reported today that gatherings of South African soldiers close to the churches have deterred SWAPO guerrillas from going there, as inevitably they would. When one hears the news today from OXFAM representatives in the area that a South African base was established 40 yards away from an assembly point, and that a South African soldier stood at the entrance to an UNTAG assembly point, can one be surprised that the number of SWAPO guerrillas who have surrendered is as small as it is? We have also been told today that four SWAPO soldiers, who presented themselves to a Finnish Lutheran mission at Oniipa, told the mission that they did so because they did not feel able to go to the United Nations assembly points without the missionaries' protection because approaching those points was too dangerous.
That is the reality of what is happening now and it does not say much for the bona fides of the Administrator-General, Mr. Piennaar, who now maintains that he was misunderstood, that SWAPO guerrillas should be interrogated at the time of their surrender and before their removal to Angola. But interrogated by whom? The answer is, by SWAPOL, the South-West African police force. Recently I asked the Minister of State at Foreign and Commonwealth Office Question Time to give us some assurances on this. Clearly, she could not do so then, but I hope that she will be able to tonight. It is believed that up to half the members of that force are former members of Koevoet, which is Afrikaans for crowbar, a notorious, cruel and inhumane paramilitary counter-insurgency unit, which was supposed to be disbanded under resolution 435 but which, it would seem, has been integrated into the ordinary police force of the territory.
Yet SWAPO guerrillas are supposed to surrender themselves for interrogation by those people. It beggars belief that that can be the basis of any genuine peace or trust between the parties in this conflict. We need a practical assurance on the role of SWAPOL and Koevoet within it—and on that of battalion 101. At one stage in the debacle that followed the events of 1 April, when UNTAG was caught unequipped and unprepared in terms of its military numbers and any form of strategy—we are told that its members did not even know how to contact SWAPO because the lines of communication did not exist —the number of UNTAG forces in the region was such that things came to such a pass that it was necessary to use battalion 101 to police the conflict. Battalion 101 is another hated and loathed offshoot of the South African army.
None of that inspires trust or confidence. It does not hold out any hope for a lasting peace or for a smooth and steady transition, through the electoral process, to ultimate independence. We want some signs of the bona fides of the Administrator-General and South Africa in this matter. South West Africa territory force members should be confined to their bases and UNTAG should be increased to such a level that it can be relied upon to police the settlement.
The situation demands a re-evaluation of the Security Council's initial response to the requests from the Secretary-General for 7,500 soldiers to form part of UNTAG instead of the 4,650 that he was ultimately allocated. That allowed a saving of $284 million in a budget which was cleared only on 1 March. When, on 31


March, my German parliamentary colleague and I asked when the force would be operational, the director of the special representative's office, Mr. Cedric Thornberry, said that it would take six weeks.
There is a clear argument for increasing the forces at the disposal of the special representative and we look to the British Government to give the clearest possible indication that that is the line which we should be pursuing in the Security Council. Someone must make that demand and we look to this Government to make it. That demand is eminently reasonable and vital if we are to move in the right direction.
We need those assurances from the Government and we look to the Minister of State to provide them to the House and to the country tonight. However, we must also reflect on what we expect UNTAG to do. We must reflect on what we expect those men, women and soldiers to do in Namibia and what we expect the dedicated international civil servants to deliver. We must consider what attitude and approach is required of them in the implementation of resolution 435.
We can envisage no way forward in that territory which requires UNTAG to perform a reactive role or to act simply as a court of appeal, distanced from the hurly-burly and day-to-day resolution of conflict, without a hands-on approach which is proactive as well as reactive. If the special representative, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, does not adopt that approach, UNTAG will not have the confidence of the people and it will be obliged to rely on the Administrator-General, Lois Piennar, for support and assistance.
How can we ask the United Nations in Namibia to perform the task which the international community has set it, namely to take Namibia out of the clutches of apartheid and from the control of South Africa, using the same office which for all these years has kept Namibia in the thrall of apartheid? That is not on. There must be a willingness to be proactive and get out and actively engage in the issues and resolution of conflict which will inevitably present themselves daily to the parties in Namibia given the difficulty and delicacy of the task.
I hope that all hon. Members appreciate the delicacy and difficulty of the position in Namibia. We are not talking about Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia, where Britain had sole responsibility and where there was a governor-general of the calibre and quality of Lord Soames. We must also recognise that unless we adopt the words "control" and "supervision" which relate to the electoral process contained in resolution 435 and become concerned not simply with supervision but with control, it will not be possible to move Namibia through the electoral process to independence. There must be resources and the political will to control the situation and come out from under the wings of the Administrator-General. That is vital for the confidence of the people in UNTAG and for the resolution of the conflict.
Let us consider the task which Mr. Ahtisaari set himself when he arrived on 31 March. He detailed what he described as the essential preparations. First of all, he said:
All Namibian political prisoners and detainees, wherever they are held, must be set free.
That is a requirement of resolution 435. However, there is an immediate problem there. I have met lawyers involved in human rights cases in Namibia and I have met representatives from the Churches responsible for ministering to the families of detainees.
I have been told—and I believe this to be true—that there are no lists of detainees giving details of where those people are being held or who they are. The Administrator-General does not know how many people are detained and he is not aware of how many are detained by the South African security forces which are not directly answerable to the Administrator-General in their operations. There will be some detainees in South Africa and some in Namibia. The United Nations must meet the lawyers, Churches and other groups working with prisoners in order to compile a list.
No such meeting had taken place by 31 March. If we are waiting for the Administrator-General to deliver up those people, that would show an optimism about the good faith of the Administrator-General which simply is not justified. There is a need for a sufficiently resourced team to set about that work in a way that does not cause it to have to rely on the Administrator-General.
Mr. Ahtisaari said that those in exile
must have the chance to come here, to their native land.
I visited the director of the RRR committee which is a partner organisation of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Namibia. That committee is responsible for the reception, resettlement and rehabilitation of those people—that is what the three RRRs stand for. It had not received a penny from the UNHCR. It relies entirely on money from the World Council of Churches and the Lutheran World Federation. The RRR committee is not a great organisation. It consists of a small group of Church people from the denominations in Namibia who are seeking to provide the infrastructure for those three aspects of the process—reception, resettlement and rehabilitation.
I urge the Government arid the Minister of State to make urgent representations to our ambassador at the United Nations to make sure that we put pressure on UNHCR to deliver the money now. We are talking about movements of people, the numbers of which can vary. Estimates range from 40,000 to 80,000, but it is thought that a realistic figure is between 58,000 and 68,000. Many of those people are children under the age of 11 who leave the camps but have no schools to attend.
Where are the returning people to live? There are already problems about accommodation, and huge infrastructure problems will hit that country in the next few months. The timetable is clear and says that by mid-May, which is just a month away, refugees and detainees should begin to return to Namibia. At this time the infrastructure needed to receive them is not in place. We need to give aid now for that process. We must not take the view that we should wait and see until independence. We need to get in there now.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, not least because I committed the discourtesy of missing much of what he has said. He mentioned a matter which I raised in a recent parliamentary question. I support the basic principle that there should be additional infrastructure support for Namibia before the independence process reaches its conclusion.

Mr. Boateng: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. His intervention is a sign of the way in which these issues unite all strands of opinion in the House. This is not a matter of party political controversy and I am sure that the Minister of State will take that on board.
The need is there now and we cannot afford to wait, because if we do massive harm will be caused to the country and its people. The special representative went on to say:
Laws which could interfere with free and fair elections will be abolished.
In Namibia a huge edifice of discriminatory law of one sort or another has been created. It is designed to break up the country into various ethnic homelands of one kind or another. There are 13 different ethnic education authorities, each with responsibility for an ethnic group. That is a totally unworkable and bizarre system, but the matter goes beyond that to a law designed to stifle the free dissemination of information and expression of opinion under the Police Act and various Defence Acts.
I was concerned to discover that two of the leading lawyers that I met in Windhoek were not aware of any member of the legal profession or anybody concerned with human rights in Namibia who had been consulted by the United Nations about identifying those laws. Is the United Nations to rely once again on the Administrator-General, the very person who put those laws in place and who has been administering them all this time? Will he be asked to detect and identify the laws? That stretches the bounds of credibility, but that is not all.
While I was in Namibia, two days before 1 April Gwen Lister, the editor of The Namibian, and Anton Labowsky, a distinguished trade unionist and lawyer, were summoned under the Police Act for disseminating information about security forces two years before. The summonses were issued under one of the laws that will have to be repealed after 1 April, and the same Administrator-General who is apparently to be relied upon to identify and repeal those laws issued the summonses. He did that to stifle, suppress and hold back Gwen Lister and Anton Labowsky during the course of the independence process.
We cannot rely on the bone fides of such a man and the United Nations and UNTAG must be empowered and emboldened to take a stance that will enable them to draw on all available sources of information and action to bring about the repeal of those laws. Without such repeal it will be impossible to move to a successful settlement.
We are all agreed that there must be an end to violence and intimidation from whatever source. We addressed that matter earlier in the debate. Such violence and intimidation are never acceptable but we know the difficulties about containing them because they were experienced in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. But it must be done. Every political party, whatever its belief, must have a chance freely and fairly to put its case to the people.
While I was in Namibia I met Church men, laity and people who are active in the political process and people who are not. They all expressed concern that there would be difficulties unless UNTAG had people on the ground and until the United Nations was able to disseminate free, fair and impartial information. As in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, we need United Nations information vans to tell the people the truth. We cannot rely on the South West Africa Broadcasting Corporation or on the overwhelming majority of the printed press in that country to do that. Most of the media has clearly taken sides, and that was clear simply by watching television even if one could not understand every word. There is a heavily biased media in favour of South Africa and its interests.
I met one pastor who gave me personal testimony about the army going into the schools and seeking to explain to the children the meaning of resolution 435. When a headmaster called on the Church to come in and explain and to put its view, the Church did not even have a professional video unit. It is not rich in the resources needed to explain and to convey information. It is desperately crying out to the international community for such resources, and one hopes that that cry will be heard. When the pastor went to that school, someone from the local education authority came in and challenged the headmaster and said, "Why are you asking this Church man to explain resolution 435 to the children? Why have you not asked a member of the defence force?"
I have no reason to doubt stories that I heard of South African army personnel going from village to village, ripping the shirts off villagers who supported SWAPO and requiring them to wear DTA shirts, or of army personnel going from village to village carrying pictures of Ethiopia and saying to the villagers, "If you vote for SWAPO, this is what will happen to your country." The telegrams from Oxfam representatives and the fax information from the churches in Namibia show that that is happening now. It is not a figment of SWAPO propaganda; it is the truth. There has to be an answer and a counter to that. I hope that the Minister will ensure that we put the case for an enhanced information presence amongst the UNTAG forces in the Security Council in the days and months ahead.
I hope, too, that the Minister will recognise the extent to which already the election campaign is being fought in Namibia by those who have the closest possible connection with South Africa. It must be said that the DTA is South Africa's surrogate. No one believes for a moment—certainly South Africa does not believe—that anyone other than SWAPO will win the election. After all, SWAPO has been the flag carrier of independence and has been at the forefront of the armed struggle. The people know why they have the prospect of independence. In Namibia they will no more vote for the DTA and its allies than the people of Zimbabwe did for Bishop Muzorewa. People are not that gullible. They will vote for SWAPO.
What South Africa seeks to ensure, by fair means or foul, is that SWAPO will not get two thirds majority necessary for it effectively to write the constitution. That is the concern of South Africa. That is why it is waging a massive propaganda war and why it sought to use the Prime Minister in the way that it did, both at Windhoek and subsequently in the House when she gave the answer that she did to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber. The hon. Gentleman was told that all the information would be available to him and that he should read what the Secretary-General had said. Then it emerged that the Secretary-General's statement was confidential and was not available. I have news for the House—it is available, and as from tonight it will be in the Library. I have a copy here and I will put it in the Library. It shows that the Secretary-General made it crystal clear that it was not possible to say that SWAPO had an offensive intent. The whole House will be able to see the document in the Library later tonight because it is right that it should be in the public domain.
That is all part and parcel of the campaign of misinformation and the attempt to manipulate the media and the political process that are being fuelled and funded by South Africa. I saw it with my own eyes when I


attended the beginning and end of the DTA rally in Windhoek on 1 April. It was an interesting experience. The comparison with the SWAPO rally, which I also attended, is worth making. The DTA rally was to take place at a ground which had been chosen as an act of provocation—immediately adjacent to the ground that SWAPO had originally chosen—but SWAPO withdrew because there was a danger of violence if the two rallies took place side by side.
The DTA rally took place on a ground that was well equipped with pavilions and tents. It had a massive stage and a huge amplification system. The SWAPO rally, on the other hand, took place without any tents or pavilions. The SWAPO leadership and speakers spoke from the back of a van. Even my local party would not have been happy with the communications system. Nevertheless, the SWAPO rally attracted about 25,000 people, while the DTA attracted only about 6,000. That is the difference between the two parties on the ground. It is interesting that the DTA should attract so few people, despite all that expenditure, which included a horse show. The DTA is noted for its horse shows, which are used to draw people in. I also witnessed the free distribution of shirts at the start of the DTA meeting. One wishes that one's own party were in a position to throw T-shirts off the back of a lorry, as the DTA did to reward people for attending that rally.
Free transport was also provided. SWAPO members in Windhoek told me that they had come down from the hinterland in free transport provided by the DTA. They boarded the van and then changed their T-shirts once they arrived at Windhoek. However, it was not just a matter of handing out free T-shirts at the beginning of the rally. Had I not seen it with my own eyes, I should not have believed it, but the DTA also handed out corned beef at the end of the meeting. If one attended from the beginning, one had the chance of a free T-shirt, but if one stayed to the end —not always easy to do on any political occasion—there was a can of corned beef as well. Should there be any doubt about that, I have photographs of the corned beef being distributed and carried away. I took those photographs myself, when I attended the end of the DTA rally that afternoon. They show Herero ladies in beautiful costumes based on Victorian and German costumes of the period, smiling and waving, and carrying away their cans of corned beef. Although I took those photographs myself, I think that they should be deposited in the Library so that right hon. and hon. Members have evidence of the corned beef reward for those who withstood the DTA's rhetoric. They will therefore be placed in the Library with the Secretary-General's report for Members of Parliament and other interested persons to examine.
The question that must and will be asked by those concerned with the peace process in Namibia is where the beef lies in the resolution and determination of UNTAG to see that process through, and in the resolution and determination of the Security Council to provide the means and the resources to achieve that. It is no use simply blaming UNTAG. The fact remains that all too often UNTAG finds its hands tied by a lack of resolution and of will on the part of the Security Council. The challenge to the House and to the international community is to put the beef into the peace process, and in so doing to give that little boy in Oshikati and the rest of his family in Ovamboland, together with all the other little boys and girls in Namibia and their families throughout that territory, the chance, hope and opportunity to enjoy a

peaceful transition out of the bonds of apartheid and into the international community as a non-racial democracy within the Commonwealth. That is what they want. We have seen the trust of the people of Namibia betrayed in the past. We must not be a party to their betrayal in the future.

Mr. Michael Knowles: I thank the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for his courtesy in allowing me to speak in what is very much his debate. It is kind of him to let someone else speak, particularly when he knows that I shall not agree with everything that he said. It is partly a product of our system I agreed with and can accept that much of what he said, but inevitably I shall concentrate on the issues on which I disagree.
The hon. Member for Brent, South was absolutely right about the personal tragedies—especially that of the small boy in Namibia. It is a tragedy for any small boy caught in such a war anywhere—be it Namibia, or anywhere else in Africa, in Afghanistan or in central America. Little more than a generation ago it was also true of many young children on this continent. That is always the effect of warfare. A bloody guerrilla war has been going on for a long time in Namibia, and the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that South African forces undoubtedly bear this in mind.
Nevertheless, I find it hard to accept the hon. Gentleman's version of 1,800 SWAPO guerrilla troops straying across the border and practically carrying election literature and ballot boxes. That does not seem likely and I know from accounts from Namibia that, even according to the kindest of interpretations, it did not happen in that way.
I can well believe that SWAPO thought that it should be an equal partner in the agreements, but it was not—and deliberately so. The agreements were between outside powers. SWAPO is now one party among many standing for election. It is not the sole representative of the Namibian people. If that were so, an election would not be necessary. The African National Congress stance on South Africa comes to mind that all that need to be discussed are the modalities of the transfer of power. However, SWAPO has to compete with other political parties in the election market.

Mr. Hunter: The hon. Member for Brent, South said that chance, hope and opportunity were what the Namibian people should be given, as should all people of southern Africa. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) extend his argument to include or expand the proposition that SWAPO is not the vehicle to give chance, hope and opportunity when it so manifestly abuses the peace process that is being implemented?

Mr. Knowles: My hon. Friend must bear with me. I can believe that many individuals among the SWAPO troops were under the misapprehension that they could return to Namibia, and some paid a high price—indeed, the ultimate price—for that misapprehension. Who issued the orders to them? Eighteen hundred troops do not cross a border in such a solid way by chance or misapprehension. It was a deliberate move and the higher command of SWAPO must have issued the orders.

Mr. Hunter: Perhaps it was Nujoma.

Mr. Knowles: It may well have been Nujoma.
At the last count I saw 42 parties were to run in the elections, although I expect that it will boil down to six or seven. One advantage that Namibia has, and will have when it becomes independent, is that its black politicians have been in place for a long time, so when it gains independence it will not be a direct transition from colonialism. The fact that there are black administrators who run large enterprises will be an advantage. As the hon. Member for Brent, South knows, there is a considerable infrastructure in Namibia, including road networks and industries. The cost of the war has been appalling, but there is much left on which to build.
The difficulty with the Council of Churches in Namibia is that it is often seen, whether fairly or unfairly, as a mouthpiece for SWAPO. The point has been made that we need much more aid for Namibia, especially to back up the democratic processes. It was pointed out, for instance, that there was not enough money for the UNHCR.
My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that a large tranche of aid was voted by the European Parliament the other week to help the democratic process. We must ensure that the money is used for precisely that purpose —that it does not disappear into holes and is not misappropriated. That responsibility will lie primarily with the European institutions, but I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend will have a say in the matter, as indeed she should.
The hon. Member for Brent, South rightly said that this settlement is entirely different from the position reached in Zimbabwe. He made a point which must, I believe, always be made about any circumstances in southern Africa—that, however much it may be deplored, the truth is that the economy of southern Africa as a whole depends entirely on South Africa, its railway systems and its ports. Most ironically of all, even on Namibia's independence its main port, Walvis Bay, will still legally be an integral part of South Africa because of a settlement reached in 1896, when the British occupied it and it was passed on to the Cape colony. A final irony is that when Namibia rescinded some of the apartheid laws, people who broke the Immorality Act in Walvis Bay would be arrested and tried in South Africa but put in gaol in Namibia, where breaking the Act was no longer a crime—a truly bizarre situation. Matters will not necessarily become easier with independence, and in some respects they may even become more difficult.
I support what the hon. Gentleman said about increasing the size of UNTAG. More troops are needed on the ground, as well as more administrative support. Of course, that will not ultimately overcome the problem of dependence on South Africa—both on its administrators and on its supply routes—as the hon. Gentleman hopes because to get equipment through to support the United Nation troops requires the use of South African facilities. That is another example of the complexity of the problem and the difference between Namibia and Zimbabwe. Nevertheless, I believe that the extra cost of bringing in administrators and troops will be worth while because the alternatives are worse—either the settlement will break down and we shall go back to where we were, or find ourselves in a worse position and if independence breaks down we shall end up with a second Congo, which would be horrific. There must be a right to return for the exiles

and all those who went into exile must be accounted for. The hon. Member for Brent, South commented on the South African record, but one must also comment on the SWAPO record. There are some nasty rumours about what has happened to some of the exiles and detainees in SWAPO hands.
The solution will not be easy. We know all too well that the concept of the nation state, which has been foisted on Africa as a whole, is a western European concept based on the boundaries drawn by the colonial powers and does not accord with the reality of the stage of development in many countries. The idea that political parties are anything other than expressions of national or tribal feeling is nonsense. When many make the prediction that SWAPO will win the election, it is based on the simple statistic that the Ovambo people, who are SWAPO's main support, now constitute about 52 per cent. of the population. In 1980, they were about 46 per cent. of the population. Many Ovambo were previously in Angola because of the colonial division drawn through the middle of their territory but have now come to Namibia, so there is an additional 6 per cent. of Ovambo who are refugees from Angola. There is no way to distinguish between those who are theoretically Namibian citizens and those who are theoretically Angolan citizens.
As 52 per cent. of the population support SWAPO, it is likely that SWAPO will gain a majority, although I am not sure that it will gain the two thirds needed to set up the constitution. As the hon. Member for Brent, South said, that is currently the key argument about the settlement. We need more resources in Namibia now to ensure that a settlement takes place. The alternative of a breakdown after independence, which would be a replay of the Congo or Angola where there were nearly equally balanced power blocs, is too awful to contemplate. Every hon. Member would agree with that point of view.

Mr. Bernie Grant: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on raising this debate. He has brought a measure of sense into the debate that did not, I am afraid, exist when the Prime Minister spoke in the House a week ago last Tuesday. I also want to congratulate him on going to Namibia and being there at a time when the situation was very dangerous for him and, of course, for the people of Namibia.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) mentioned to me some time ago that he had been invited to South Africa by the South African Government. He admitted to me that he had been shocked by apartheid in practice, but clearly he was not shocked enough to be able to change sides and join us in opposing the apartheid system perpetrated by the South African Government. I shall not be as friendly as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South. There are a number of culprits who need to be named and the first and chief culprit is the Prime Minister herself. She has been aware for some considerable time of the situation in Namibia.
On 31 January 1989 I asked the Prime Minister this question:
Is the Prime Minister aware that the United Nations secretary-general has been compelled by the five permanent members of the Security Council, including Britain, to propose a reduction in the number of United Nations troops in Namibia from 7,500 to 4,650 during the transition to independence? Has she heard the views of President Mugabe


of Zimbabwe, who has stated that the five permanent members of the Security Council have been fiddling with the moralities of resolution 435? In view of the fact that she will shortly be visiting Zimbabwe and that South Africa continues to support armed bandits and assassination gangs, will she review Britain's position in this matter and insist that the original numbers of troops be maintained?
That was a pretty straightforward question. In reply the Prime Minister said:
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would wish to uphold a decision of the five permanent members of the Security Council. We shall honour it. The agreement was an excellent one and was obtained by the co-operation of those five members plus the co-operation of South Africa and Angola. I believe that we should do everything in our power to see that it is fulfilled. As far as this country is concerned, we pay our full subscription to United Nations peace-maintaining forces everywhere."—[Official Report, 31 January 1989; Vol. 146, c. 163.]
As usual, the Prime Minister avoided the issue, but there is no way in which she can say that she was not warned about the position.
We talked in great detail about the reduction in United Nations troops. I asked the Prime Minister whether Britain, as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, would intervene and insist that the original number of troops should be maintained. She refused to do so. The Prime Minister owes the House an explanation not only because she refused to take any notice of that point, but also because of her subsequent actions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South referred to the fact that the Prime Minister quoted from the so-called confidential document. I am pleased that she has taken the initiative and that that United Nation document is to be placed in the Library. However, we still need an explanation from the Prime Minister about the matter. After her evasion of the truth, in her usual arrogant way she sent along the Leader of the House to apologise for her. She did not and she could not bring herself to apologise in person.
The Prime Minister also said that SWAPO was guilty of
a most serious challenge to the authority of the United Nations.
There is no provision in the United Nations plan that prohibits the entry of SWAPO personnel into the country prior to the commencement of the plan. The real challenge to the United Nations was the breach of the ceasefire. There is no evidence that SWAPO opened fire first. All the evidence from independent sources blames the South African police and Koevoet for launching unprovoked attacks against SWAPO. We challenge the Prime Minister to produce evidence that SWAPO was the first to breach the ceasefire.

Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman asking the House to accept that the United Nations process for the implementation of resolution 435 includes armed—I stress the word "armed"—SWAPO guerrillas entering Namibia after 1 April? Does he understand that that was part of the agreement?

Mr. Grant: As far as I am aware, United Nations resolution 435 does not prevent SWAPO guerrillas from entering the country. That is what is important. If there is nothing to prevent SWAPO guerrillas from entering the country, they are at liberty to do so. It is, after all, their country. It is not the United Nations' country or South Africa's country. They have a right to enter the country whenever they wish.
The Prime Minister also said that SWAPO had committed itself to the Geneva accord. The words "Geneva protocol" would have been more correct. Under that accord, SWAPO is required to stay north of the 16th parallel in Angola. SWAPO was not a party to the accord, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South mentioned, nor has it ever endorsed it. The only undertaking that SWAPO gave was to agree to a unilateral ceasefire in accordance with the protocol. Nor does this protocol form any part of the United Nations plan. Again, we challenge the Prime Minister or her right hon. Friend the Minister of State to produce evidence that SWAPO has ever committed itself to the Geneva protocol.
The question with which I and, I am sure, other Members on both sides of the House are left is this: why was the Prime Minister so gullible? Why was she so easily taken in by the propaganda of the South African forces? I hope that the Minister of State will answer some other questions. Why, for instance, did she not make a statement to the House when she returned——

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Grant: Why, for instance, did she not make a statement to the House after her visit to southern Africa, as she did last year after she had been to Nigeria and north African countries? What was she afraid of? Was she afraid that her statements would be put to the test? Could she not have answered the questions that we wanted to put to her? Why was she afraid?
There is another question: why did she seem to get everything wrong? Why was she so eager to accept the South African position? Did she not read—as I did—the report of the United Nations' representative in Namibia, which said that SWAPO did not have any hostile intent? Did she not think, "Maybe I can give them the benefit of the doubt"? Certainly not. I suggest to the House that the Prime Minister is, indeed, a true friend of the racists and that she cannot stand the idea of Namibian independence. That is the fact of the matter.
I should like to go on at length, but we want to hear art answer from the Minister. However, I have to say that: there has been another party to this misinformation—the press, the media. I was shocked when I read reports emanating from Windhoek, from the chief reporter of The Independent, who not only accepted the South African position, hook, line and sinker, but went on to attack Sam Nujoma, the Secretary-General of SWAPO, in terms that made it clear to me that The Independent, through its reporters in Windhoek, was basically acting as the agent of the South African defence forces.
We demand that the Prime Minister come before the House and make a proper statement about her visit to Namibia, about the fact that she interfered in the peace process there, about the fact that she refused to do anything about the cut in the UNTAG forces put forward by the Security Council, of which the United Kingdom is a member. We demand that she come here to give an explanation about the confidentiality of the report of the United Nations Secretary-General. We demand that she give evidence as to why she thinks that SWAPO has broken any agreements—and we want her to produce those agreements.
Many hon. Members and many people outside who are paying attention to our deliberations want answers to at least some of those questions. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of them this evening, but the Prime Minister should certainly be here.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall disregard much of what we have heard because I believe it to be wrong and irrelevant to the process of independence in Namibia. The essential point is that the process must work because there is so much at stake. So much can go wrong in Namibia and the implications of things going wrong are fearful to predict with regard to other parts of southern Africa.
SWAPO is no angelic force and its leader, Sam Nujoma, is no angel. It has committed monstrous crimes in the name of its pursuit of freedom and independence in Namibia. We must not forget that in past years there have been many people—black skins, white skins and people from many origins and races—trying to create a basis for a genuine democratic state in Namibia. They must succeed.
I shall say no more other than to stress the fact that one must dicount the proposition that SWAPO is a redeeming force any more than one can say that the African National Congress is the redeeming force for South Africa. There are other forces of moderation and compromise which are seeking a way to create a genuine democratic society. That must be the way.

Miss Joan Lestor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hunter: No, I have finished.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I welcome the opportunity that has been provided by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) to speak about the latest developments in Namibia and the first two difficult weeks of the implementation of the United Nations plan for the transition to independence. These are events of major regional and international importance.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said, independence must be made to work in Namibia. The process must succeed. It is vital to Her Majesty's Government and everyone who wants to see peace in Namibia that we do everything we can to make the process succeed. As the hon. Member for Brent, South said, success is vital to the Oshikati boy and all the other young people, let alone those who have suffered a great deal in recent years.
That success can take place only if all parties adhere to the United Nations plan. It is also crucial that the authority of the United Nations is upheld. Therefore, I hope that, despite one or two remarks we have heard tonight, the House will unite in emphasising that Britain will give unstinting support, as it has already, to the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General, his special representative in Namibia, and all those who are working for peace in that much benighted country.
I shall respond to the remarks made about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the hon. Members for Brent, South and for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). My right hon. Friend condemned SWAPO on the basis of information which had been given to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. It is clear that her judgment, on Tuesday before last, of the events that had occurred was correct. It was not only her judgment but it was shared by the United States, Cuba, Angola and the Soviet Union. I happen to know that it is shared by some African nations which are as concerned as anybody in the House to see peace in Namibia.
When the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council was delivered on 3 April it was delivered in confidence, although much of its content was known. I am surprised that the Secretary-General should use the hon. Member for Brent, South as his channel of communication. Nevertheless, the information has been known to all of us, if not the exact wording. When hon. Members have the chance to see the exact wording they will know exactly why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have spoken about the incursions in the way we have.
Enough of that——

Mr. Boateng: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: I would like to get on, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. He did speak for some 52 minutes. That is his right, I know, but he gave me a lot of things to answer, so perhaps he will let me continue.
The hon. Gentleman made a very interesting defence of SWAPO in his contribution tonight, but he failed to disguise two vital points. First, none of the bloodshed, the deaths that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) referred to and many others have so wept over, would have occurred if SWAPO had not violated the agreement it indeed had come to with the United Nations.
The Prime Minister's intervention in Windhoek on 1 April saved the peace process from complete collapse. I do not think there is any doubt in this country or in any of the other permanent member countries of the Security Council that without that intervention there could have been a far worse situation in Namibia.
I want to move on to what happened on the first——

Mr. Grant: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: No, I will not give way at the moment. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken.
I want to move on from the first day of the agreement because throughout recent months this country has been thoroughly active in support of the United Nations plan. In recent days our Signals unit of about 170 people arrived in Namibia and was immediately deployed to the north. It is playing a leading role there, not only carrying out its signals task but manning the nine assembly points to which the SWAPO insurgents are due to report. In the light of the need to speed up deployment of the United Nations transitional assistance group, Britain made available to the United Nations at under two days' notice 55 Land Rovers and 12 4-ton trucks, which were airlifted earlier this week to Namibia. We have already contributed half a million pounds to UNHCR for the repatriation of Namibian refugees.
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Brent, South that I will look into why that money is not already


passing through to RRR and the Churches. Certainly it has been paid over because, as in all other cases, the United Kingdom pays its dues promptly to the United Nations and intends to go on doing so.
In addition to that, let me just remind the House that the financial contribution from Britain to UNTAG is about £14 million. In other words, we are determined to do all we can to establish peace in Namibia. That is true of those people who collect through their Churches to send goods out to Namibia right through the whole of our population, including the Prime Minister. I refute absolutely what the hon. Member for Tottenham said. He made a number of very foolish statements tonight. I hope that I shall not have to haunt him with them in the years ahead.
Let me say one other thing about the tragic blunder that SWAPO made in sending over 1,800 troops south across the border into Namibia in contravention of the United Nations plan. I do not want to dwell on it, but there is one point that I think is very important.

Mr. Grant: rose——

Mrs. Chalker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will just let me finish my sentence.
Some commentators have claimed that the five permanent members of the Security Council were somehow at fault because the total numbers deployed by UNTAG are fewer than originally envisaged in the 1978 United Nations plan. This is nonsense. It was the United Nations Secretary-General who decided, on the basis of expert military advice which was gathered in Namibia, the size of the force required for UNTAG. He formed his report on the basis of information gathered at the end of 1988 and it was presented to the Security Council on 23 January this year.
The five permanent members of the Security Council, including ourselves, supported him immediately, but the Security Council as a whole accepted the Secretary-General's recommendations finally only on 16 February. The General Assembly then delayed its approval until 1 March.
By telling the House those dates, I seek to explain why 4,650 persons were not deployed on 1 April. It was because we had gone through a regrettable delay, caused by the filibustering of those who disagreed with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The six weeks that were lost at that point were crucial.
Even if all the UNTAG troops had been in Namibia on 1 April, they could not have prevented the bloodshed in the north. The House should remember that UNTAG was never designed to engage in a pitched battle with armed insurgents. It was to keep the peace and to take Namibia through the transitional process to its elections on 1 November.

Mr. Grant: The Minister emphatically said that SWAPO broke the United Nations agreement. Will she give us chapter and verse about any agreement that SWAPO made with the United Nations on this matter? Will she give us the facts, if not tonight then at some other time?

Mrs. Chalker: There was no excuse for misunderstanding by SWAPO. We accept that the United Nations plan is not a single document. It consists of a settlement proposal, followed by a large number of subsequent

agreements and understandings which date back as far as 1978. The facts are as follows. The document to which Opposition Members have sought to refer today and on previous occasions was the then Secretary-General's report back in February 1979. That is the only document that has ever proposed that any SWAPO forces would be in Namibia at the time of the ceasefire. That proposal was made without consultation with the contact group, and it was overtaken in 1982 when SWAPO agreed that the clause should be disregarded. An agreement was reached on monitoring by UNTAG of SWAPO bases which would be in Angola and Zambia.
It is clear from the Secretary-General's report of 23 January this year that UNTAG's military tasks, which are listed in paragraph 43, were without reference to SWAPO bases inside Namibia. Further to that, it was made clear that, in August last year, SWAPO forces would be deployed to the north of the 16th parallel in Angola. That matter was known and acceped by SWAPO. SWAPO told the Secretary-General in August last year that it unilaterally accepted the Geneva accord. Early this year, in New York, it was again reminded of the exact arrangements. There was no excuse for it not to know.
The actual deployment of which I have spoken and which was so delayed is most important. We have always pressed for the speedy deployment of the 4,650 men. The Finnish battalion went with the airlift of equipment from Britain and will take up position on Saturday 15 April. That will mean that all three battalions will be fully deployed by 20 April.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East and other hon. Members have referred to reinforcements. We have said from the beginning that we and other Security Council members will promptly consider any request by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for further reinforcements of the 4,650, but there is no sign that that request will necessarily be forthcoming. If it is forthcoming, it will be carried out quickly. There is also no need for further United Nations troop numbers if we can keep the United Nations plan on track. Observers, of whom there are increased numbers in the 4,650, represent a more important way of proceeding in this matter.
Since 1 April, when we have been more active than perhaps could have been anticipated in getting the United Nations plan on track, our representations have concentrated on encouraging each party to honour the agreed United Nations plan. As the House knows, the Joint Commission of Angola, Cuba and South Africa met urgently last weekend at Mount Etjo. It produced a declaration which we strongly support.
That set up a process for restoring the ceasefire and putting the United Nations plan back in being by setting up a mechanism for monitoring SWAPO assembly and withdrawal to Angola. Our embassies in Capetown and Luanda and the British liaison office in Windhoek are active in supporting the implementation of that Mount Etjo declaration.
It would be wrong to pretend that there are no problems; some of them we have heard about tonight. But let us not forget that the arrangements to assist with this withdrawal exercise could not have been prepared in advance because such arrangements would never have been necessary if we had not had the movement by SWAPO over the border from Angola into northern Namibia on 1 April in contravention of the United Nations plan.
That incursion was the root cause of many of the problems that we have since seen. It is now vital that SWAPO should withdraw north of the 16th parallel in Angola, that its bases there should be monitored by the Angolans, as previously agreed, and by UNTAG, and that all sides should show restraint.
That brings me to an important matter raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South and to a question he asked me yesterday. We believe that not only must SWAPO return north of the 16th parallel and its forces be under effective supervision, but that South African forces, too, must return to the position of 31 March—that is, to be confined to base and to be monitored by UNTAG: even-handed completely.
The declaration at Mount Etjo envisaged SWAPO reporting to UNTAG, but there was also provision in the declaration for a South African presence at the assembly points, and indeed for the Angolans to be present at the seven of nine assembly points which are on the border. We would naturally expect that the South African defence force and the south-west African police presence could not be on such a scale or deployed in such a way as to inhibit SWAPO reporting there.
We were also concerned about reports that the security forces wished to interrogate or even to photograph or fingerprint SWAPO forces. We made our concerns known to the South African Government at a high level. The House will have noted that since then the South African Foreign Minister has said that any questions about the identity of those reporting to assembly points will be asked by UNTAG, and he has confirmed that UNTAG will supervise the agreed procedure.
Mr. Pik Botha has also stated that there is no question of SWAPO members being interrogated and that the South African Government would not object to an extension of the period for SWAPO members to present themselves to the assembly points. It is also important that members of SWAPO should not seek to hide their arms in caches and merge themselves into the civilian population in Namibia. Our concern is that all concerned—I repeat, all concerned—must abide by what was agreed at Mount Etjo.
Another important point raised by the hon. Member for Brent, South was about Koevoet. South Africa has been disbanding the Koevoet counter-insurgency units. Certainly, some of them have been absorbed into the south-west African police. He knows that we hold no brief for Koevoet, and in the past we have raised their excesses with the South African Government.
No fewer than 500 United Nations police monitors will now be there alongside the Signals regiment from Britain, and others. Those police monitors deployed in Namibia —an increase of 140 on the 1978 level—will be there to monitor and see exactly what is going on. All the South African police and defence forces will be subject to monitoring under that plan by the observers who are being sent there.
I remind the House that the sooner SWAPO forces withdraw to Angola, the sooner effective police monitoring by the United Nations of the South African forces and police force can begin. It is obvious that the task

of the monitors will be easier in conditions of peace, which is what their presence was designed for, than it would be if a bush war were raging.
Only when the withdrawal process has operated properly in Namibia can the United Nations special representative and the Administrator-General carry out their original tasks as set out in the United Nations plan. They will then be able to decide on the repeal of discriminatory legislation, which is vital, and on an agreed electoral system. It is crucial that there should be no more breaches of the United Nations plan by anyone. We will be monitoring implementation very closely and giving our full support to the United Nations. We also hope to work closely with other missions on the ground. The front-line states have a particular role to play and we welcome their decision to establish an office in Windhoek and will be working with them.
The hon. Member for Brent, South raised three other general points of genuine concern. On the first, refugee reception is a priority and we are anxious that it should go smoothly. I have already mentioned the £500,000 for UNHCR and we shall look into what the hon. Gentleman said about the RRR committee. We urge all the parties involved to agree to a system to assist the return of refugees efficiently and humanely.
The hon. Member for Brent, South also referred to the importance of political prisoners being freed. I agree. Political prisoners on both sides must be freed. Let us not forget that SWAPO has admitted holding over 100 political prisoners in Angola. We are concerned not only about those who have been prisoners of the South Africans; we look to SWAPO too to implement this important part of the agreement.
On human rights, we understand that the United Nations is already planning to talk to human rights groups. We are concerned that the United Nations special representative should have access to information from a wide range of sources, including SWAPO, and we have already raised this point in the Security Council. I am confident that the United Nations will have thorough discussions to meet all the concerns that the hon. Member for Brent, South mentioned and that others, including myself, will mention.
The hon. Member for Brent, South was in Namibia during the first days of the process. In the next seven months, there is a three-month period for the repeal of discriminatory legislation and for agreement on the electoral system. A four-month election campaign will start at the end of June. Under the agreed plan, the South Africans were under no obligation to negotiate on the legislation or on the electoral system before 1 April. However, that must happen now and those are the things that we want the Administrator-General and the special representative to get on with.
We have been giving aid to Namibia since 1976 and we shall be giving further aid. We hope that as peace is established, we shall be able to give further economic assistance both bilaterally and through the European Community.
We shall be watching most carefully to see that there is maximum freedom of information during the electoral process and minimum intimidation. We must be realistic. It is impossible to rule out all intimidation and I think that the hon. Member for Brent, South accepts that. We know that there will be problems and that there will have to be maximum restraint. However, the first priority must be for


us and all other nations that want peace in Namibia to support the authority of the United Nations and help it to get on with its job.
Yes, we want to put an end to violence and intimidation and we want to make sure that the political parties can put their case over. I spoke only this morning about the media, and especially the radio, becoming involved in the process.
It is true that the process started badly—indeed, it started very badly with the insurgency from the north—but provided that the Mount Etjo decision and agreement is speedily and completely implemented, I believe that the process of peace will not only be put on the track but kept on the track. It goes without saying that a successful move

to independence is vital for Namibians of all parties and all ages, from the Oshikati boy to the oldest Namibian who wants to see his country free.
However, I believe that the implications go even wider than that. A successful transition to independence for Namibia will have a major impact on the prospects of peace in Angola and on the stability of the region as a whole——

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half past Ten o'clock